Decision keyword:
Expansible fixing plug II
Law applied:
EPÜ Art. 52
Patent Act (PatG) § 116 paragraph 2 no. 2, § 117; Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) §§ 530, 521 paragraph 2, § 296 paragraph 1.
Summary:
- When examining the patentability of the subject matter of a product-by-process claim, it must be clarified whether the manufacturing process specified in the claim is reflected in specific properties of the product which distinguish it from products known in the prior art.
- Physical and functional characteristics of the product resulting from the application of the process are among the features of the claimed product. Whether such features exist and what they are must be determined by interpreting the claim (confirmation by Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of June 19, 2001 - X ZR 159/98, GRUR 2001, 1129, 1133 - Zipfelfreies Stahlband; judgment of June 8, 2010 - X ZR 71/08, juris para. 24).
Patent Act (PatG) § 116 (2) No. 2, § 117; Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) §§ 530, 521 (2), § 296 (1)
An auxiliary request by the nullity defendant submitted for the first time after the deadline for the response to the appeal may only be considered if its admission would not delay the settlement of the legal dispute or if the party provides sufficient justification for the delay.
Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of July 17, 2025 - X ZR 40/23
Picture credits: kalmada_AdobeStock.com