Germany: The effects of a cooking pan

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

A new claim filed by Ericsson, and a request for access to documents, were also among recent developments
Cooley and Stikeman Elliott advised 35Pharma on the deal, which will allow GSK to get its hands on S235, an investigational medicine for pulmonary hypertension
Simon Wright explains why the UK should embrace the possibility of rejoining the UPC, and reveals how CIPA is reacting to this month’s historic Emotional Perception AI case at the UK Supreme Court
Matthew Grady of Wolf Greenfield says AI presents an opportunity in patent practice for stronger collaboration between in-house and outside counsel
Aparna Watal, head of trademarks at Halfords IP, discusses why lawyers must take a stand when advising clients and how she balances work, motherhood and mentoring
Discussion hosted by Bird & Bird partners also hears that UK courts’ desire to determine FRAND rates could see the jurisdiction penalised in a similar way to China
The platform’s proactive intellectual property enforcement helps brands spot and kill fakes, so they can focus on growth. Managing IP learns more about the programme
Hire of José María del Valle Escalante to lead the firm’s operations in ‘dynamic’ Catalonia and Aragon regions follows last month’s appointment of a new chief information officer
The London elite have dominated IP litigation wins for the past 10 years, but a recent bombshell AI case could change all that
Two New Hampshire IP boutiques will soon merge to form Secant IP, seeking to scale patent strength while keeping a lean cost model
Gift this article