Germany: The effects of a cooking pan
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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

Germany: The effects of a cooking pan

In a recent decision (Kochgefäß [Cooking pan], X ZR 81/13) the Federal Supreme Court (FSC) once again dealt with the requirements of an infringement under the doctrine of equivalence.

According to the case law of the FSC, three conditions must be satisfied if an embodiment departing from the literal meaning of a patent claim is to fall within its scope of protection. First, the embodiment must solve the problem underlying the invention with means that, while being modified, having objectively the same effect. Second, the skills of the person skilled in the art must enable him to determine that the modified embodiment with its different means has the same effect. Third, the considerations to be applied here by the person skilled in the art must be based on the semantic content of the teaching protected in the patent claim.

The decision at issue further clarifies the third condition.

The case concerns cooking pans made of a metal with a low thermal conductivity. With such cooking pans, a better distribution of the heat is achieved by applying a thermally conductive layer to the bottom of the pan. In order to protect the thermally conductive layer, it is entirely encapsulated by metal with low thermal conductivity and greater resistance to mechanical damage.

With respect to the effects that are to be achieved by the capsular base, the appeal court had held that the claim did not disclose minimum requirements of the protection against mechanical damage. Thus, the appeal court considered this as an additional effect, which does not need to be achieved by the attacked device.

This legal conclusion was found to be wrong by the FSC. Instead, the FSC held that an equivalent effect can only be assumed if all the effects according to the invention are achieved. In contrast to the appeal court´s approach, effects of essence to the invention and additional effects cannot be distinguished.

Mayer_Thomas-100

Thomas Mayer


Maiwald Patentanwalts 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

The Munich Regional Court ruled that Lenovo was an unwilling licensee and had engaged in ‘holdout’ tactics
Technological innovation should play a critical role in advancing sustainable practices, argues Justin Delfino, global head of IP and R&D at Evalueserve
Ewan Grist of Bird & Bird, who acted for Lidl in its trademark victory against Tesco, reveals some of the lessons brand owners can take from the judgment
Dolby’s lawsuit at the Delhi High Court follows a record win by Ericsson earlier this year against the same defendant
Tee Tan, chief information officer at the owner of several IP firms, says to avoid tech just for the sake of it and explains how his company builds in-house tools
Regardless of whether the FTC’s ban on non-competes goes into effect, businesses should stop relying on these agreements
Mary Till, a former legal advisor at the USPTO who has joined Finnegan this week, is looking forward to providing clients with a USPTO perspective
IP in-house counsel who receive lots of pitches from AI vendors explain how they review them – or why they ignore them
Anna Sosis discusses the importance of IP education and explains why, away from IP, she could see herself becoming a mindfulness teacher
Cross-border judicial collaboration and EU copyright were hot topics on the second day of the EUIPO’s 5th IP Case Law Conference
Gift this article