Prior art that requires fundamental reconfiguration of the disclosed solution to end up with something falling under the scope of protection of a claim cannot normally render the claimed subject matter obvious. Case date: 17 January 2019 Case number: X ZR 8/17 Court: Federal Court of Justice of Germany A full summary of this case has been…
The FCJ confirmed that inventive step is to be acknowledged if the feature(s) distinguishing the claimed invention from the starting point for the assessment of inventive step are not directly and unambiguously derivable or at least rendered obvious by the prior art. This applies equally to functional features. Case number: X ZR 51/06 Case date: 29…
The FCJ held that when inventive step is assessed, for each feature of the assessed claim which is not disclosed, i.e. directly and unambiguously derivable, to be considered obvious, an incentive for the skilled person to particularly choose this feature rather than an alternative would need to be proven or at least plausible. Case date: 05…
In a case concerning a patent relating to methods of transferring component tape information to a component mounting machine, the Federal Court of Justice held that when inventive step is assessed it is of the utmost importance to consider all aspects of the claimed subject-matter and in particular effects and advantages of these aspects in…
The FCJ held that the general suitability of a technical means of the common general knowledge to solve a technical problem can only suffice as a motivation for the skilled person to make use of this technical means if it is directly recognisable for the skilled person that the technical circumstances of the problem make…
According to the FCJ, when it comes to the question of whether a particular solution was obvious to the skilled person, it is irrelevant whether a different solution was more obvious. In the present case, it was decisive that two options were available for the skilled person, both of which were suitable for the purpose…
The Federal Court of Justice confirmed that the definition of the person skilled in the art aims at defining a fictive person, from whose point of view the prior art and the patent is considered. Therefore, this definition cannot be based on considerations as to interpretation of the patent or inventive step. Case date: 09 January…
