In this case the FCJ expanded on earlier case law regarding claim construction and in particular on the issue of whether a certain embodiment would fall within the scope of protection by way of equivalence if the specification in the patent described various options, but only incorporated one of those options into the claim wording. In principle, in such a case the remaining options mentioned in the description should not fall within the scope of protection. However, this is different if the solution according to the patent claim only serves as an example for a broader technical concept and if the skilled person is able to deduce from that wording further embodiments which correspond to this general technical concept.

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.

Kluwer IP Law
This page as PDF