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

Germany: What happens when prior art is described in a patent?

In the decision Scheinwerferbelüftungssystem (X ZR 16/17), the German Federal Court of Justice was concerned with the issue of claim interpretation in terms of prior art described in the patent. As a general principle, highlighted in the decision, it must be considered for claim interpretation that a patent with its teaching seeks to delimit itself from prior art described therein. In particular, if the content of a state of the art description is equated with the preamble of a patent claim, the features of the characterising portion must, in case of doubt, not be construed as being part of the subject matter of the state of the art from which they shall differ.

Such claim interpretation finds its legal basis in the second sentence of paragraph 14 of the German Patent Act (corresponding to Article 69(1) EPC), hence "the description […] shall be used to interpret the claims". Prior art described in the patent has also been considered in claim interpretation in several previous decisions of the German Federal Court of Justice (e.g. BGH X ZR 37/76 - Stromwandler, BGH X ZR 45/85 - Befestigungsvorrichtung, BGH X ZR 25/06 - Insassenschutzsystemsteuereinheit). The interpretation rule developed in the present decision (the patent seeks to delimit itself from the prior art described therein) seems therefore to be in line with prior Supreme Court case law. According to the reasoning of the present decision, this interpretation rule seems to be derived from a principle set forth in a decision of the High Court of England and Wales (RPC 1995, 705; GRUR Int. 1997, 373ff., in extracts).

The present decision was made in patent nullity proceedings. Thus, a claim interpretation, applying the principles developed in the present decision, might be possibly in favour of the patent owner. A narrower interpretation of the claimed subject matter might lead to a delimitation from the state of the art cited by an opponent. At the same time, it is logical that that the interpretation rule employed in the present decision might be applicable to claim interpretation in infringement proceedings. In the worst case scenario for a patent owner, applying the interpretation principles employed in the present decision could lead to a narrower scope of protection and even exclude infringing matter. Admittedly, the foregoing scenarios are extreme ones. Moreover, the interpretation rule is only applicable when there is doubt. It is therefore unlikely to be sensible to draw general conclusions from this decision about the extent of acknowledging prior art when drafting a patent application or during the examination proceedings, since it is impossible to predict if one of the aforementioned scenarios will occur.

Trautmann

Martin Trautmann


Maiwald Patentanwalts- und Rechtsanwalts-GmbHElisenhof, Elisenstr 3D-80335, Munich, GermanyTel: +49 89 74 72 660 Fax: +49 89 77 64 24info@maiwald.euwww.maiwald.eu

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Chris Semerjian, MacNeal Darnley and Nicolas Charest provide an overview of trade secret law in Canada and reveal best measures to protect and enforce trade secrets.
Inspired by his former team at Pure Storage, Suvashis Bhattacharya wants to reward inventors with merchandise, he tells Managing IP in an exclusive interview
IP minister George Freeman said on Wednesday that plans for a broad text and data mining exception would not go ahead and that further consultation was needed
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The trademark battle over ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs could inform future legal strategies and will provide at least some answers, whichever way it turns, say sources
The EPO BoA says the choice of format now rests with individual boards, sparking outrage from attorneys who say in-person hearings are the ‘gold standard’
Counsel at SMEs and private practice advisers say funding schemes are useful but must be backed by wider changes
Counsel welcome the Delhi High Court’s clarity on claim amendment but worry that its interpretation of the Patents Act negates statutory law
Kitchin is to hear the DABUS case before stepping down on September 29 this year
Numerous studies show that lawyers are increasingly stressed at work and looking for a way out, but law firms are still in denial