1 / 40

Patents: Infringement under the doctrine of equivalence - Germany -

AIPPI seminar Paris, 7 and 8 November 2013. Patents: Infringement under the doctrine of equivalence - Germany -. Karsten Koeniger , Harmsen Utescher. Patents: Infringement under the doctrine of equivalence - Germany –. 1. Legal provisions 2. Principles and case law 3. Defences.

alima
Download Presentation

Patents: Infringement under the doctrine of equivalence - Germany -

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. AIPPI seminar Paris, 7 and 8 November 2013 Patents: Infringementunderthedoctrineofequivalence- Germany - Karsten Koeniger, Harmsen Utescher

  2. Patents: Infringementunderthedoctrineofequivalence- Germany – 1. Legal provisions2. Principlesandcaselaw3. Defences

  3. Lady Remington Liberty

  4. „Epilady“ (ca. 1991)Apparatusforhairremoval(Dispositifd‘epilation)

  5. Device forremoving a tick(Dispositifpourenleverunetique)Düsseldorf District Court, decisionof 15 September 2011

  6. EP 1 424 917: Device forremoving a tick (Dispositifpourenleverunetique) a Adevicebeingdesignedwith a slit (36, 54, 50), b foruse in removing a tick …, characterised in that c thedeviceisadaptedforkeeping in wallet, pocket, bagorsimilarplace, d saiddevicebeingdesignedas a creditcard in size, e saidcardismadeof a relativelystiff material …, and f saidcardhasa cornerareabeingdesignedwiththeslit (36, 54, 50) … .

  7. Allegedinfringingdevice(not absolutelyexactly)

  8. European Patent Convention 2000Article 2 • (2) The European patent shall… have the effect of and be subject to the same conditions as a national patent …, unless this Convention provides otherwise.

  9. German national patents • German courts: nodifferencebetween national and European patentsregardingthedeterminationoftheextentofprotection.

  10. European Patent Convention 2000Article 69 • The extent of the protection conferred by a European patent … shall be determined by the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims. = § 14 German Patent Act

  11. European Patent Convention 2000Protocol on the Interpretation ofArticle 69 • Article 1 • General principles  • Article 69 should not be interpreted as meaning that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Nor should it be taken to mean that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection conferred may extend to what, from a consideration of the description and drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patent proprietor has contemplated. On the contrary, it is to be interpreted as defining a position between these extremes which combines a fair protection for the patent proprietor with a reasonable degree of legal certainty for third parties.

  12. European Patent Convention 2000Protocol on the Interpretation ofArticle 69 • Article 2 • Equivalents  • For the purpose of determining the extent of protection conferred by a European patent, due account shall be taken of any element which is equivalent to an element specified in the claims. 

  13. EP 1 424 917Drawing

  14. EP 1 424 917Description [0011] The deviceaccordingtotheinventionis so designedthat … thecarde.g. in a cornerareaismadewith a… slit … . [0017] The disclosedslit … mayalternatively, oras a supplement, also beprovidedat a shortsideofthecard.

  15. EP 1 424 917: State oftheart

  16. German courts: • Twotypesofinfringement „Literal“ (wortsinngemäß) equivalent (äquivalent)

  17. ExtentofProtection „Literal“ (wortsinngemäß) equivalent

  18. „Literal“ infringement • Not just theliteralisticwordingoftheclaim („Wortlaut“), but thesemanticcontenttothepersonskilled in theart („Wortsinn“), • The patent specificationprovidesitsownlexicon.

  19. Equivalence: 3 steptestsince „Schneidmesser“-decisionsofthe Federal Court of Justice in 2002 • 1. Same effect (Gleichwirkung) • 2. Obviousness (Naheliegen) • 3. Equalvalue (Gleichwertigkeit)

  20. First step: same effect (Gleichwirkung) • Doesthemodifiedembodimentsolvetheproblemunderlyingtheinventionwithmeansthathaveobjectivelythe same technicaleffect?

  21. Allegedinfringingdevice First step: same effect (Gleichwirkung) „Literal“ version

  22. First step: same effect (Gleichwirkung) • … same effectonly, ifthemodifiedsolution not onlyessentiallyachievestheoveralleffectoftheinvention, but also achievesthespecificeffectintendedbythe not literallyrealizedfeature. • Whereminimumrequirementsastothequantityorqualityof a certaineffectarisefromtheinterpretationofthe patent claim, thenmodifiedmeans not satisfyingthoserequirementscannotbeconsideredtoachievethe same technicaleffectundertheaspectof an inferior embodiment …. • German Federal Court of Justice, decisionof 17 July 2012 „Pallet Container III“ („Pallettenbehälter III“)

  23. Allegedinfringingdevice „Literal“ version

  24. Second step: Obviousness (Naheliegen) • Was thepersonskilled in theart, usinghisspecialistknowledge, ableto find the variant attheprioritydateashavingthe same effect?

  25. Second step: Obviousness (Naheliegen) Attheprioritydate. But: “There may be equivalent patent infringement if the alternative means as such was not known at the priority date, because it was not made available until through the further advances in technical development.“ (Düsseldorf High Court, InstGE 10, 198 - "Zeitversetztes Fernsehen")

  26. Allegedinfringingdevice „Literal“ version

  27. Third step: Equalvalue (Gleichwertigkeit) Are theconsiderationsthatthepersonskilled in thearthadtoapplyorientedtothetechnicalteachingofthe patent claimin such a waythatthepersonskilled in thearttookthe variant intoaccountasbeing an equalvaluesolution?

  28. Third step: Equalvalue (Gleichwertigkeit) „The aforementionedresponsibilityofthe patent holder toensurethatwhat he desiresprotectionforisset out in thefeaturesofthe patent claimthereforerestrictstheprotectiontowhatistoberelatedtothesemanticcontentofits patent claims also in such cases in whichthe holder – forwhateverreasons– hasmissedthisopportunityandthe patent, ifconsideredobjectively, remainslessthan a more extensive technicalcontentoftheinvention.“ Federal Court of Justice, decisionof 12 March 2002 „Schneidmesser II“

  29. Third step: Equalvalue (Gleichwertigkeit) If the description discloses a number of ways in which a specific technical effect can be achieved, but only one of these ways is included in the patent claim, the use of one of the other ways does not, as a rule, constitute an infringement of the patent with equivalent means. Federal Court of Justice, decision of 10 May 2011 “Occlusion Device”

  30. Allegedinfringingdevice „Literal“ version

  31. EP 1 424 917Description [0011] The deviceaccordingtotheinventionis so designedthat … thecarde.g. in a cornerareaismadewith a mainlyacutelyangledslitorcut … . [0017] The disclosedslit … mayalternatively, oras a supplement, also beprovidedat a shortsideofthecard.

  32. Third step: Equalvalue (Gleichwertigkeit) If the description discloses a number of ways in which a specific technical effect can be achieved, but only one of these ways is included in the patent claim, an infringement with equivalent means can only be assumed if the modified solution distinguishes from the solution that is shown in the description, but not in the patent claim, in a similar way like the “literal solution”. Federal Court of Justice, decision of 13 September 2011 “Diglycidyl Compounds” (Diglycidverbindung)

  33. Equivalence: Defences • - „Formstein“-objection • - Prosecutionhistory?

  34. Federal Court of Justice, decisionof 29 April 1986 „Formstein“ Formstein am Straßenrand (pierremouléeà bas-côté)

  35. Defences: „Formstein“-objection Doesthemodifiedembodiment, havingregardtothestateoftheart, lack novelty, orisitobviousto a personskilled in theart? The Patent Office onlyexamineswhetherthe „literal“ subject matter ofthe patent ispatentable. The same istruefor patent oppositionandnullityproceedings. Thereforethe „Formstein“-examinationhastobecarried out in infringementproceedings.

  36. EP 1 424 917: State oftheart

  37. Defences: Prosecutionhistory? In the past, the Federal Court of Justice: the prosecution history may not to be taken into account when construing a patent unless events of the prosecution history show up in the patent specification as granted or amended after grant (see decision of 12 March 2002 ”plastic pipe part”; also see the report of the German national group of AIPPI regarding Q229). In its “Occlusion Device” decision of 10 May 2011 , the Federal Court of Justice had expressly left open the question if the publication of the application could be taking into account when construing a patent.

  38. Defences: ProsecutionhistoryDevelopment? Federal Court of Justice, decision of 17 July 2012 “Polymer Foam” (nullity proceedings): A comparison of the patent specification with the publication of the patent application could, at the most, come into consideration if there are contradictions between the description and the claims and such a comparison can contribute to the clarification of the scope of a limitation made during the grant procedure or in opposition proceedings.

  39. Merci beaucoup!

  40. Dr. Karsten Königer, Dipl.-Phys. Rechtsanwalt / Attorneyat Law Harmsen Utescher Neuer Wall 80 20354 Hamburg Germany Phone +49 40 376 90 90 Fax +49 40 376 90 999 Karsten.Koeniger@harmsen.utescher.com www.harmsen.utescher.com

More Related