Feasibility of an invention "Child Restraint System" (Federal Supreme Court)

Law applied

Art. 54, Art. 83, Art. 100 lit. b, Art. 123, Art. 138 EPC

Summary:

1. The disclosure sufficient for the feasibility of the invention is given if the person skilled in the art is able, without inventive step and without unreasonable difficulties, to realize the teaching of the patent claim on the basis of the overall disclosure of the patent specification in combination with the general knowledge of the art on the filing or priority date in such a way that the envisaged success is achieved (subsequent to BGH GRUR 2015, 472 - Stabilsisierung der Wasserqualität). (para. 50)

2. For the feasibility of the invention, it is sufficient if the person skilled in the art can supplement incompleteness without own inventive effort and, if necessary, obtain clarity with the help of orienting experiments (connection to BGH GRUR 2010, 916, 918 - Klammernahtgerät). (para. 50)

3. If the technical instructions described in the original application documents on the basis of an embodiment example or in any other way present themselves to the person skilled in the art as an embodiment of the technical teaching more generally claimed by the patent and if this teaching can be taken directly and unambiguously from the application as belonging to the invention applied for, this does not go beyond the content of the application (following BGH GRUR 2014, 542 - Kommunikationskanal). (para. 66)

BGH, Judgment of January 25, 2022 – X ZR 27/20

Download full judgment (machine translation)

>>Further Judgments

Picture credits: Christopher Rohde - AdobeStock.com