Decision keyword:
Rope course security
Law applied:
EP() Art. 69
PatG § 14
Summary:
If the patent claim distinguishes between two states a) and b) (here: unlocked and locked state), but links the existence of state b) (here: locked state) to a further feature (here: not destructively detachable), not every state that is not considered to be state a) (here: unlocked state) cannot automatically be regarded as state b) (here: locked state), but only exists if the additional feature (here: cannot be released without destruction) is present.
Munich Higher Regional Court, final judgment of July 31, 2025 – 6 U 2797/23 e
Picture credits: Robert Kneschke_AdobeStock.com