The Federal Court of Justice held that:
- The sequence of steps in a method claim is normally determined by the claim’s wording.
- A completely new attack based on a document only filed upon appeal is too late and not to be admitted on appeal.
Case date: 09 May 2017
Case number: X ZR 97/15
Court: Federal Court of Justice of Germany
A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.
_____________________________
To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.
Kluwer IP Law
The 2022 Future Ready Lawyer survey showed that 79% of lawyers think that the importance of legal technology will increase for next year. With Kluwer IP Law you can navigate the increasingly global practice of IP law with specialized, local and cross-border information and tools from every preferred location. Are you, as an IP professional, ready for the future?
Learn how Kluwer IP Law can support you.
When in some aspects the case law of the BGH differs from the case law of the BA of the EPO, in the present case they are congruent.
In a process claim the sequence of steps is binding, e.g. T 1595/15.
Filing in appeal a document which should have been filed in first instance, here BPatG-BGH, before the EPO OD-BA, is too late, cf. Art 12(4) RPBA.