Decision Keyword:
Holding arrangement
Law applied:
EPC Art. 69 para. 1, Art. 56
German Patent Act (PatG) Section 14 para. 4 sentence 1
Summary: (Machine translation)
EPC Art. 69 para. 1; PatG Section 14
The fact that a patent delimits itself from specifically described prior art can be of importance for the interpretation of the claim. However, the prerequisite for this is that it is sufficiently clear from the patent specification to which specific embodiment the delimitation relates and by which feature the patent delimits itself from this embodiment (continuation of Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of November 27, 2018 - X ZR 16/17, GRUR 2019, 491 para. 19 et seq. - Headlight ventilation system; judgment of April 26, 2022 - X ZR 44/20, GRUR 2022, 1129 para. 45 et seq. - Composite element; judgment of September 27, 2022 - X ZR 87/20, GRUR 2022, 1731 para. 22, 28 - Fuel cooling).
EPC Art. 56; PatG Section 4 sentence 1
Based on the state of the art, there may be various options for further action depending on the circumstances and it may therefore be obvious to take different paths. In this case, it is generally irrelevant which of the alternative solutions the skilled person would consider first (confirmation of BGH, judgment of November 11, 2014 - X ZR 128/09, GRUR 2015, 356 para. 31 - Repaglinid; judgment of February 16, 2016 - X ZR 5/14, GRUR 2016, 1023 para. 36 – Call routing method).
Federal Supreme Court (BGH), Judgment of May 7, 2024 – X ZR 51/22 –
Download Judgment (machine translation)
Header: AGDER_AdobeStock.com