Decision keyword:
Semiconductor device
Law applied:
PatG § 33, § 139 (1), (2), § 140a (1), (2), § 140b (1), (3)
ZPO § 308 (2), § 321, § 524
Summary:
1. Patent claims must always be interpreted in the overall context of the patent in suit; in particular, the terms used therein must be interpreted with reference to the description in the overall context of the technical teaching protected by the patent. If a patent in suit protects both a device claim and a related method claim and if both claims are based on the same objective task, passages in the description dealing with the patented method for manufacturing the patented device may also be used to interpret the device claim if these passages provide an indication of the spatial and physical form that the device to be manufactured by the method should ultimately have.
2. If the first-instance judgment does not contain a decision on the costs of the intervention and no application for supplementation of the judgment has been made within the time limit specified in Section 321 (2) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO), the court of second instance may, ex officio, decide on the costs of the intervention in the first instance if the judgment is appealed. However, this does not preclude the admissibility of a cross-appeal seeking (exclusively) a decision on the costs of the intervention in the first instance.
Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of September 10, 2024– 2 U 33/24, GRUR-RS 2024, 33144 –
Download Judgment (machine translation)
Header: alivealivea_AdobeStock.com