The FCJ confirmed that, when formulating the problem as a starting point for assessing inventive step, it is not permissible to narrow the problem by referring to prior art not cited in the patent. The patent relates to a sound generator, in particular for parking assistance systems for vehicles. The sound generator is equipped with…

This case concerns the question of whether, and under what conditions, a supplier of infringing products who is located abroad can be held liable for infringement of the German patent for acts committed abroad. The FCJ held that the supplier may be liable if he was aware or should have been aware of the fact…

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 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…

The choice of the starting point for evaluation of inventive step requires a justification which is not in itself provided by the fact that a certain citation proves ex post to be the “closest state of the art”. In particular, it cannot be assumed without further ado that an expert in a technical field in…

Nullity Plaintiff still has a need for legal relief even after expiry of the patent as long as Patentee has not given up claims against customers of Plaintiff. A conventional personal computer with telephone functions does not render obvious to implement one of its features in a mobile phone. Case date: 16 January 2018 Case number: X…

The Federal Court of Justice held that in utility model registration proceedings, the utility model department must examine whether one of the grounds for refusal listed in Sec. 2 Utility Model Law exists.  Further, the exclusion of utility model protection for methods is in accordance with Article 14.1 and Article 3.1 of the Basic Law….

The FCJ confirmed that the cited prior art should, generally, provide concrete suggestions, hints or at least provide other reasons beyond the recognisability of the technical problem to seek the solution to a technical problem in the way as presented in the patent. The decision by the FCJ also confirms that if an attack on…

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…