Decision Keyword:
Tending module
Law applied:
EPÜ Art. 54 II, Art. 69 I; Patent Act § 3 I, § 14
Summary:
- Statements of purpose, effect or function contained in a device claim determine and limit the protected subject matter only to the extent that the device element to which they relate must be physically and spatially designed in such a way that it can perform the function in question (confirmation of Federal Supreme Court BGH, judgment of June 7, 2006 - X ZR 105/04, GRUR 2006, 923 para. 15 - Luftabscheider für Milchsammelanlage).
- If a device has the required suitability, it is irrelevant whether the patented properties and effects are achieved regularly, only in exceptional cases or only by chance and whether the user intends to achieve these effects (confirmation of Federal Supreme Court BGH, judgment of December 13, 2005 - X ZR 14/02, GRUR 2006, 399 para. 21 - Rangierkatze).
- Prior use already discloses the subject matter of a patent if there is a possibility, which is not merely theoretical and not merely remote, that any third party and thus also persons skilled in the art will obtain reliable and sufficient knowledge of the invention (confirmation of Federal Supreme Court BGH, judgment of December 9, 2014 - X ZR 6/13, GRUR 2015, 463 para. 39 - Presszange; judgment of April 21, 2020 - X ZR 75/18, GRUR 2020, 833 para. 28 - Konditionierverfahren).
- The suitability of a device used before the priority date to perform a particular function is only accessible to the public if the way in which it is accessible allows the perceptible information to be recorded so precisely and reliably that a reproduction based on it would objectively realize the function.
Federal Supreme Court (BGH), Judgment of 26 November 2024 – X ZR 114/22, GRUR 2025, 310
Download Judgment (machine translation)
Header: galitsin_AdobeStock.com