Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Court blocks prior art time travel


In the latest international briefing for Germany, Julia Mössinger examines a court decision dealing with prior art disclosure

In Drahtloses Kommunikationsnetz (X ZR 14/17), the German Federal Court of Justice had to deal with a prior art disclosure that had been published online. Internet publications are published at the same time in different time zones on different local dates.

The disclosure in question was published online at 8:36 CET on January 8 2008 on a European server. Due to the time difference, the document was available in Hawaii on January 7 2008 local time. The plaintiff claimed that the disclosure's publication date was January 7 2008.

Three different scenarios were discussed:

(i) The publication date of a disclosure is determined by the time zone of the patent office receiving the patent application. Even if a disclosure is published in Hawaii at an earlier (local) date, the relevant date is the (local) date at the patent office at the time of publishing the disclosure (applied by High Court, Birss J [2015] EWHC 3366, Court of Appeal, Gross LJ, Floyd LJ, Arnold J, [2017] EWCA Civ 266 - Unwired Planet International Ltd v Huawei Technologies Co Ltd; EPO Opposition Division - 03 012 734.4).

(ii) The publication date of a disclosure is the local date where publication occurs. In case of an internet upload, this should be according to the geographical location of the person/entity uploading the disclosure.

(iii) The publication date is considered the earliest local date of any location where the prior art disclosure became available. Hence, the publication date of an online publication is the local date of the time zone with the earliest time where the disclosure is available (applied by EPO, 09 733 661.4).

The court rejected scenario (iii), holding that there is no basis for extending the time of a disclosure beyond the geographic location of the publication. Further, scenario (iii) requires determining the exact time (hour, minute) of publication, which may cause difficulties.

Regarding scenarios (i) and (ii), no ruling was made, since both scenarios yielded the same result in the situation in question. Scenario (i) avoids a circumstance where a disclosure published after filing the application becomes prior art. However, it is necessary to determine the time of publication exactly in order to determine the local date at the receiving office.

For scenario (ii), the exact time of publication is not relevant. This scenario accords most with the principles applied by the PCT. For example, when filing priority applications and subsequent applications, the local date at the respective filing office is decisive. However, the second scenario does not rule out the possibility that a disclosure published after filing an application can become prior art.


Julia Mössinger

Maiwald Patentanwalts- und Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Elisenhof, Elisenstr 3

D-80335, Munich, Germany

Tel: +49 89 74 72 660 

Fax: +49 89 77 64 24

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library