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 2025

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

IP lawyers at three firms reflect on how courts across Australia have reacted to AI use in litigation, and explain why they support measured use of the technology
AJ Park’s owner, IPH, announced earlier this week that Steve Mitchell will take the reins of the New Zealand-based firm in January
Chris Adamson and Milli Bouri of Adamson & Partners join us to discuss IP market trends and what law firm and in-house clients are looking for
Noemi Parrotta, chair of the European subcommittee within INTA's International Amicus Committee, explains why the General Court’s decision in the Iceland case could make it impossible to protect country names as trademarks
Inès Garlantezec, who became principal of the firm’s Luxembourg office earlier this year, discusses what's been keeping her busy, including settling a long-running case
In the sixth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss IP Futures, a network for early-career stage IP professionals
Rachel Cohen has reunited with her former colleagues to strengthen Weil’s IP litigation and strategy work
McKool Smith’s Jennifer Truelove explains how a joint effort between her firm and Irell & Manella secured a win for their client against Samsung
Tilleke & Gibbins topped the leaderboard with four awards across the region, while Anand & Anand and Kim & Chang emerged as outstanding domestic firms
News of a new addition to Via LA’s Qi wireless charging patent pool, and potential fee increases at the UKIPO were also among the top talking points
Gift this article