Decision keyword:
Interlayer film for laminated glass
Law applied:
EPÜ Art. 69 (1)
PatG § 3 (1) sentence 2, § 9 sentence 2 no. 1, § 14, § 139 (1), (2), § 140a (1), (3), § 140b (1), (3)
BGB § 242, § 259
ZPO § 138 (3), § 148
Summary:
1. A term used in a patent claim may have several different meanings if the term is assigned several functions in the description of the patented device. Thus, the same term may be used in three different ways to describe three different advantages of the claimed design of the patented device.
2. If the contested embodiment is offered in different specifications and it cannot be readily determined whether a product makes use of the teaching of the patent in suit or not, all contested embodiments are subject to the injunction. In this constellation, it is up to the defendant to ensure clarity by clearly distinguishing between the individual embodiments.
3. The suspension pursuant to Section 148 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO) with regard to pending nullity proceedings cannot be based on obvious prior use if the patent holder disputes the prior use and an expert opinion would have to be obtained as evidence.
LG Munich I, final judgment of April 3, 2025 – 7 O 12401/24, GRUR-RS 2025, 9615 –
Picture credits: Kateryna_AdobeStock.com