The claims of the plaintiff's patent state (Austrian Patent No ):
|
|
- Meagan Hunt
- 6 years ago
- Views:
Transcription
1 20 IIC 80 (1989) AUSTRIA "Lock Systems" 1. The solution defined in patent claims taken in combination with the problem that is solved determines the nature and scope of patent protection. The deciding factor is not what was invented, but what was claimed and granted. This principle is also applicable in the case of a claim to a combination of components even though protection could have been sought for individual parts or elements of the invention. 2. As a matter of principle, the preamble of a claim should state the technical field and the subject matter of the invention, whereas the characterizing part should cite the new features of the solution. For the determination of the subject matter of a patent having many elements it is, however, irrelevant whether an element is defined in the preamble or the characterizing part of the claim. Decision of the Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) April 22, Case No. 4 Ob 319/86 From the Facts: The plaintiff manufactures and sells special cylinder and safety locks and is the owner of Austrian Patent No (patent term beginning April I5, 1977) and No (patent term beginning March I5, 1978), which concern "key-lock combinations". The first defendant, whose principal place of business is the Federal Republic of Germany, manufactures key blanks which locksmiths use to produce keys for various kinds of locks. The defendant offered, in a catalogue supplement, cylinder key blank B No. 1366, which fits the cylinder locks of the plaintiff, and sold approximately 115 key blanks of this type to the second defendant, who distributed these key blanks to locksmiths. The claims of the plaintiff's patent state (Austrian Patent No ): 1. Key-lock combinations, especially in the use of flat keys in cylinder locks for lock systems, whereby the key and keypath comprise within a lock system one unchanging basic shape and one variable shape (which together make up the total shape), and the basic shape (shape elements A, B, C) as well as the variable shape (shape elements o, p, q, r) are designed to be divided between the effective key usages, characterized in that starting from a theoretical unified shape, in the form of zig-zag patterned rhombs directly adjoining one another, that are joined laterally in the cut parts of the key (6, 7) over the total height of the rhomb with the shape elements (A, B, C, o, p, q, r), which are arranged crosswise to the cut part of the key along lines (6, 7)... It is noted in the description in the patent that similar key-lock combinations, whose unchanging basic shape is always in the same place (namely the back portion of the key), are already known. Because of this, the known locks have a limited variational ability and the unauthorized production of copied keys is relatively easy. This drawback is avoided by the described invention. The keys of the invention make the whole cross-sectional shape available for a number of unchanging basic shapes and variable shapes.
2 The plaintiff alleges that the distribution of the indicated key blanks by the defendant constitutes an infringement of all the claims of Austrian Patent No and Claims l and 3 of Austrian Patent No The shape of these key blanks corresponds to the shape of the plaintiff's keys, internally coded 345/15, and works in all the plaintiff's locks having this code..,. The plaintiff demands that the defendants - the first defendant only for Austria - be prohibited from putting the key blanks into circulation and selling them and that they be prohibited also from producing flat keys for cylinder locks where the key and the ' key opening comprise within a lock system one basic invariable shape and one variable shape, which together make up the total shape, and both the basic shape as well as the variable shape are designed to be distributed over the range of key usages..,. The plaintiff combines therewith a petition for an accounting and destruction (of the infringing key blanks) with a demand for damages based on the accounting and for authority to publish the judgment. The first defendant submitted that there was no infringement of the plaintiff's rights. The subject matter of the patent was the key-lock combination for lock systems. The purpose of such systems is to allow different key owners entry to one, several, or all locked rooms; the keys at the lowest level fit one lock, the keys on the next level fit two or more locks, and the master key fits all the locks of the systems. The structure of the plaintiff's lock system is based on a system of shape variations (of the keys). According to the patent claims, the united shape of the key and the key opening of a lock system is derived from combining an unchanging basic shape with a variable shape. The object of the plaintiff's protection, therefore, is the lock system and not one single key which is characterized by this system. A single key has a certain unchangeable shape. Those keys made from the key blanks put into distribution by the defendant could only be made to fit one lock... The trial court dismissed the plaintiff's claim... The Court of Appeals overturned the judgment of the trial court and remanded the case back to the trial court for a new trial and judgment. While the appeal on the law by the plaintiff remained without success, the Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeals and upheld the judgment of the trial court. From the Opinion: The trial court inferred from the description of the plaintiff's two patents, that they are concerned with lock systems and not single locks and a "masterkey" can only occur within a lock system. The disadvantages relating to the prior art of lock systems should, according to the patent, be avoided by the protected invention in that shape variations can be formed in the manner defined in the patent claims... The Court of Appeals upheld the decision of the trial court that the protection of the plaintiff's patents was limited to lock systems, and that the plaintiff did not ask for protection for a single key-lock combination; however, protection extends to both integral components, namely the key together with the lock... The objection raised by the defendant against the Court of Appeals' decision is justified, not, however, the appeal on the law of the plaintiff. The subject matter of the invention, within the meaning of Sec. 22 (1) of the Patent Act is the solution defined in the patent claim in connection with the stated problem. The claim deter-
3 mines the extent of protection granted to the patentee - the so-called "scope of protection" of the patent. The deciding factor is not what was invented but only that for which protection was sought in the claims and granted (see FRIEBEL-PULITZER, "Österreichisches Patentrecht" 190, 191 et seq.; Supreme Court decision of March 4, 1980, 4 Ob 408/79 - Werkzeughalter für Bohrhämmer, 1980 ÖBl. 121, with further references; Supreme Court decision of April 3, 1984, Case No. 4 Ob 321/84 Befestigungsvorrichtung für Fassadenelemente, 1985 ÖBl. 38). Because patent applications (in particular the formulated patent claims) are declaratory acts, they should be construed according to the common rules relating to the interpretation of legal declarations (see FRIEBEL-PULITZER, loc. cit., at 192 et seq.; Werkzeughalter für Bohrhämmer, loc. cit.; Befestigungsvorrichtung für Fassadenelemente, loc. cit.). Accordingly, it is permissible to take into reasonable consideration the description of a patent specification in order to clarify a vague definition, because the interpretation of the scope of the patent, like the interpretation of other legal declarations, does not rely on the wording, but rather on the meaning of the patent claim. From the wording of the preamble of the claims of the plaintiff's patents and the content of their descriptions, both lower courts came to the conclusion that neither patent protects individual locks (with respective keys) but only a certain arrangement of lock systems. The socalled preamble of a patent claim should specify the technical field and the subject-matter of the discovery, to which the invention defined in the characterizing part of the claim relates (see BENKARD, "Patentgesetz" 696; Patent Court decision of June 11, 1938, 1938 PBl. 108; also Patent Office decision of March 13, 1972, 1973 PBl.7). The characterizing part defines the new elements that provide the solution. For the proper assessment of the invention one must therefore proceed from the preamble as an essential part of the definition of the invention (Patent Court decision of June 11, 1938, 1938 PBl.108). However, a different arrangement of the claim does not basically influence the interpretation. For the subject-matter of a patent consisting of several elements it is also insignificant whether an element is stated in the preamble or in the characterising part of the claim, i. e. placing one or more characteristics in the characterizing part of the claim is not proof that the invention lies only in this part (BENKARD, loc. cit., at 410 et seq.). The expression "key-lock combinations," as is made clear in both patent documents in their references to existing publications (especially DE-AS ), includes masterkey systems (central lock systems), as well as systems composed of several (similar) locks that have a system of higher and lower-order keys (so-called "key hierarchy"). The claim of the plaintiff, that patent protection extends to individual keys, cannot be inferred from the following words: "Key-lock combinations, especially by use of flat keys in cylinder locks for lock systems, whereby.,.;" also the interpretation of patent claims takes precedence when determining the meaning of an unclear expression. The restriction of patent protection to "lock systems" (masterkey systems = central lock systems), is clearly derived from expressions contained in the preamble of the claims of both the plaintiff's patents, that "in the lock system the key and key opening have one unchanging basic shape and one variable shape, which together comprise the total shape. " A variable shape (which together with the invariable basic shape comprises the total shape) for a single key and a single lock, is not to be found: such a conception not being applicable to since locks. The distinguishable basic shape and unchanging shape presupposes a comparison with several keys within a key hierarchy. Such a hierarchy must have at least three keys, two for individual locks and one master key, which master key can be used in both locks. The restriction of the invention to lock systems also emerges from the stated goals of both patent documents. Both documents start from the known state of the art. They refer to disadvantages that arise from the key-lock combinations that are already known, namely that a certain part of the key (in the area of the back of the key) always forms a basic
4 shape with which the variable shape is associated, and that this basic shape does not offer the possibility of any variation, which sharply restricts the number of different key-lock possibilities. These disadvantages are avoided by the development of the key system of the patents of the plaintiff. In accordance with Austrian Patent No , it is necessary for the invention that both types of shapes are arranged in different sections of the whole sphere of keys, whereby these shapes can be joined together in any order without having the basic shape restricted to the back of the key. In accordance with Austrian Patent No , it is essential that these shapes are designed to be packed within one another, so that on either side of the key at least one portion of the basic shape lies between two portions of the variable shapes (and vice versa). The inventive and improved aspects set out in the two patents of the plaintiff are therefore based on properties which can only concern key systems (key hierarchies). It certainly does not mean, as the Court of Appeals properly pointed out, that the manufacture (or sale) of a single key (or even single key blanks) can be said to encroach upon the (keylock combination) patents. The underlying basis of thought of Werkzeughalter für Bohrh"mmer, loc. cit., can be derived, however, from the Court of Appeals' application of the patent law concept to "part protection," by which is meant specifically protection for so-called combination patents (cf. BENKARD, loc. cit., at 463 et seq.; FRIEBEL-PULITZER, loc. cit., at 207 et seq. The decision Werkzeughalter für Bohrhämmer is based on the same patent, in which protection was applied for in the claims for a tool holder (for jackhammers) as well as for the tool (the jackhammer) for which the holder was made. Naturally, the tool was defined differently than the holder. The appellate court at that time overruled the objection of the defendant - that the tool jackhammer) could be used with holders other than that of the plaintiff's protected holder - and held that both protected components of the invention depended upon one another and therefore each deserved protection. In the present case the situation is different because the plaintiff did not file claims for patent protection for keys only with certain shapes. What was asked for was more in the nature of protection for shape variations, which presupposes a key hierarchy. As is explained above, the protection sought in a patent application cannot exceed the prevailing interpretation of what the scope of protection is for in the patent. The owner of the patent will not receive greater protection beyond what is applied for (FRIEBEL-PULITZER, loc. cit., at 190). This also applies if protection could have been established in the claims for single parts or elements of an invention. Here then, the deciding factor is not what could have been protected but what, according to the wording of the claim, is really protected (FRIEBEL- PULITZER, loc. cit. at 207, 209; Supreme Court decision of March 11, 1975, 4 Ob 305/75, Ankerbolzen, 1975 OBl. 137, with further references). Nevertheless, it should also be remembered that immaterial changes do not diminish the scope of protection (FRIEBEL- PULITZER, loc. cit., at 207). The use of one part of a device defined in a claim can result in an infringement when the subject-matter of the claim is realized by that part, the remainder of the claim being for obvious and economically useful supplements, which display no particularities (BENKARD, loc. cit., at 463). This is not the case here. Both patents protect key-lock combinations as a single entity, composed of locks and key hierarchies. The keys and corresponding openings in the locks are characterized by the formation of certain shape variations; in Austrian Patent No through the boxed arrangement, within one another, of the basic and variable shapes, and in Austrian Patent No through the continuance or the taking away of shape elements. Also, in the characterizing part of Austrian Patent No , reference is made to characteristics through reference to shape elements A,B,C (which make up the basic shape, according to the preamble) and o,p,q,r (which comprise the variable shape according to the pream-
5 ble), which are not in the characterizing part for any one particular key shape, but rather whose characteristics are described according to the variational possibilities of key systems. The inventive advantages of this system, next to ease of production, lies essentially in that a) in comparison to known key systems the number of possible variations will be increased considerably, and b) with the not easily recognizable basic shape, it will be more difficult to duplicate an upper level key from a lower level one. These objectives are attained in that a) both types of shapes are arranged separately over the whole range of keys (or key heights) and the basic shape can be arranged in any order; and b) in Austrian Patent No the not easily recognizable groove shapes for the main shape (basic shape), whose form and number are variable, can be made more variable. From these objectives and their solution it follows that the mere description of certain key shapes - in Austrian Patent No the subject is the boxing of the shapes within one another - does not render the special properties of the inventions recognizable, because their nature lies in the specific formation of shape variations with an arbitrary placement of ordered basic shapes within a key hierarchy. The invention, therefore, resides in a combination solution; and not in the fact that the subject-matter of the infringement, which in Austrian Patent No is a mere part feature, has the shape profiles in the form of zig-zag patterned rhombs directly adjoining one another. That this shape does not constitute the essence of the invention is made clear from the fact that Austrian Patent No refers to publication DE-AS having claims directed to similar basic key shapes although expressed in other terminology. Even the characterizing features of the main claim of Austrian Patent No cannot be read into the disputed single key blanks, because the arrangement of shape elements of the basic shape between two shape elements of the variable shape is the essence of the invention that can only be achieved through a key hierarchy; this essence of the invention cannot conceivably exist in the infringing subject-matter. In addition, partial protection is out of the question. An individual key blank that, through its shape ("zig-zag patterned rhombs directly adjoining one another"), can be cut so that the resulting key fits a lock in the patented key-lock combination does not infringe the plaintiff's patents because of this feature. These patents concern arrangements of key systems and thereby all the particular individual keys that are in the key hierarchy. It is therefore insignificant whether an individual lock fits such a key, which can be developed through the application of the technical teaching in the patents to fit a patentprotected central lock system. Because the action deals with patent infringement (Patent Act, Secs. 147, et seq. ), the questions relating to the impairment of the security of the plaintiff's lock systems by the marketing of key blanks that can be cut to fit these locks are not legally relevant. When it comes to systems for which, as the plaintiff states, keys can only be copied upon presentation of a document of entitlement for authorized locks, the fears of the plaintiff regarding injury to its system are not comprehensible. If one assumes a systematic observance of these security rules, then the disputed key blank, "B No. 1366," could only be used for authorized owners of existing lock systems supplied by the plaintiff. In cases of need (to replace an unusable or lost key) these key blanks would be used to make "authorized" copies. The use of such an expediency falls within the legal rights of the purchaser of a patent-protected article. Usage consists of the usual measures: setting to work, care, and repair (BENKARD, loc. cit., at 339).
6 This Court must consequently uphold the judgment of the trial court (Code of Civil Procedure, Sec. 519 (2), sent. 2). With its appeal against the lower court's judgment, the plaintiff also objected to erroneous facts and circumstances and a defective appeal; attention to this objection by the Court of Appeals is not needed, because it has not touched upon any substantial points upon which a decision could be based. The interpretation of the scope of patent protection is, in the present case, a far-reaching legal question that can be solved on the basis of the trial court's determination and the content of the patent claims. For German-language version see 1986 ÖBl 147. H.C. Comment: It is interesting to note that independently of one another the Austrian Supreme Court and the German Federal Supreme Court had to deal with situations of claim interpretation in patent infringement proceedings which greatly resemble each other 1. While in the German case the infringer supplied radio receivers which he regarded as part of a combination of a broadcasting system, in the Austrian case a combination claim was involved for which partial protection for a combination used in this combination (lock systems) could not be claimed. Similar to the German patentee who correctly alleged that the defendant's radio receivers were purposely manufactured to fit within the patented broadcasting system, the Austrian patentee could prove that the keys of the alleged infringer fitted directly into a precise combination lock manufactured according to his patent. That both actions were dismissed (in the German case in all three instances, in the Austrian case with the exception of the Court of Appeals) shows that harmonization among the EPC Member States has been reached to a great extent with respect to the European interpretation rules on patents (Art. 69 EPC). For German and Austrian patentees this certainly results in a somewhat stricter claim interpretation and the necessity for patentees to draft claims carefully - and even fight for the wording with the examiner! The key phrase in the Lock Systems decision of the Austrian Supreme Court which equally would apply to German practice and which practitioners should keep in mind when drafting patent claims is the following: " [With respect to claim interpretation] the deciding factor is not what was invented but only that for which protection was sought in the claims..,. The owner of the patent will not receive protection which would go beyond what was requested. " Jochen Pagenberg* *) Dr.jur.; LL.M. Harvard; Attorney-at-Law, Munich; Member of the Staff of the Max Planck Institute for Foreign and International Patent, Copyright and Competition Law, Munich. 1 See German Federal Supreme Court 19 IIC 811 (1988)-Radio Broadcasting System; cf. PAGENBERG, "New Trends in Patent Claim Interpretation in Germany - Good-bye to the 'General Inventive Idea' " 19 IIC 788 (1988).
7
Utility Model Act, Secs. 12a,19, third sent. - "Cable Duct" (Kabeldurchführung) *
30 IIC 558 (1999) Germany Utility Model Act, Secs. 12a,19, third sent. - "Cable Duct" (Kabeldurchführung) * 1. In the proceedings concerning infringement of a utility model, which had been registered after
More informationInfringement of Claims: The Doctrine of Equivalents and Related Issues German Position
Infringement of Claims: The Doctrine of Equivalents and Related Issues German Position Dr Peter Meier-Beck Presiding Judge at the Bundesgerichtshof Honorary Professor at the University of Düsseldorf FICPI
More informationEuropean Patent Convention, Art. 69, Interpretation Protocol; Patent Act 1910, Art. 30(2) (former) - "Contact Lens Liquid"
28 IIC 748 (1997) NETHERLANDS European Patent Convention, Art. 69, Interpretation Protocol; Patent Act 1910, Art. 30(2) (former) - "Contact Lens Liquid" 1. In order to determine the scope of protection
More informationAbstract. Keywords. Kotaro Kageyama. Kageyama International Law & Patent Firm, Tokyo, Japan
Beijing Law Review, 2014, 5, 114-129 Published Online June 2014 in SciRes. http://www.scirp.org/journal/blr http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/blr.2014.52011 Necessity, Criteria (Requirements or Limits) and Acknowledgement
More informationAUSTRIA Industrial Property Regulations
AUSTRIA Industrial Property Regulations Ordinance of the Federal Minister of Economic Affairs relating to the implementation of the 1970 Patent Law, the Patent Treaty Introductory Law, the 1996 Protection
More informationNews and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit
WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY REPORT >>> News and analysis on IP law, regulation and policy from around the world. For the latest updates, visit www.bna.com International Information for International Business
More informationAttachment: Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing Regulations of the Patent Law of the People s Republic of China
March 31, 2009 To: Legislative Affairs Office State Council People s Republic of China Hirohiko Usui President Japan Intellectual Property Association Opinions on the Draft Amendment of the Implementing
More informationEPO boards of appeal decisions. Date of decision 11 June 1981 Case number J 0015/
Abstract A priority claim based on an industrial design for a subsequent European application was denied by the Receiving Section; the applicant appealed. The Board rejected the appeal, finding that Article
More informationAmendments in Europe and the United States
13 Euro IP ch2-6.qxd 15/04/2009 11:16 Page 90 90 IP FIT FOR PURPOSE Amendments in Europe and the United States Attitudes differ if you try to broaden your claim after applications, reports Annalise Holme.
More informationDecision on Patent Law. Patent Act Secs. 104 ter, 123, 128, Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 338 Knife-processing Device
Decision on Patent Law Patent Act Secs. 104 ter, 123, 128, Code of Civil Procedure Sec. 338 Knife-processing Device A patentee whose patent has been regarded as invalid by the courts can only be heard
More informationWarner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.:
Warner-Jenkinson Co. v. Hilton-Davis Chemical Co.: Apt Reconciliation of Supreme Court Precedent, and Reasoned Instruction to a Trusted Federal Circuit 1997 by Charles W. Shifley and Lance Johnson On March
More informationJudgments of Intellectual Property High Court ( Grand Panel ) Date of the Judgment: Case Number: 2005(Gyo-Ke)10042
Judgments of Intellectual Property High Court ( Grand Panel ) Date of the Judgment: 2005.11.11 Case Number: 2005(Gyo-Ke)10042 Title(Case): Judgment upholding a Decision of Revocation in an opposition procedure
More informationAligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO
Aligning claim drafting and filing strategies to optimize protection in the EPO, GPTO and USPTO February 25, 2011 Presented by Sean P. Daley and Jan-Malte Schley Outline ~ Motivation Claim drafting Content
More informationDRAFT. prepared by the International Bureau
December 2, 2004 DRAFT ENLARGED CONCEPT OF NOVELTY: INITIAL STUDY CONCERNING NOVELTY AND THE PRIOR ART EFFECT OF CERTAIN APPLICATIONS UNDER DRAFT ARTICLE 8(2) OF THE SPLT prepared by the International
More informationCurrent Status and Challenges concerning IP Litigation in China
Current Status and Challenges concerning IP Litigation in China 2013 by Dr. Jiang Zhipei KING & WOOD MALLESONS 1 Current Status of IP Litigation in China 2 1.1 Statistics 3 1.1 Statistics The number of
More informationCase5:12-cv RMW Document41 Filed10/10/12 Page1 of 10
Case:-cv-0-RMW Document Filed0/0/ Page of 0 E-FILED on 0/0/ 0 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION REALTEK SEMICONDUCTOR CORPORATION, v. Plaintiff,
More informationWSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar
WSPLA (Wash. State Patent Law Assoc.) Lunch Seminar Date: March 15, 2017 12:00-1:30~2:00 Place: Seattle, WA (Washington Athletic Club 1325 6 th Ave. Seattle 98101) 1 Dos and Don ts of US Inbound & Outbound
More informationGEORGETOWN LAW. Georgetown University Law Center. CIS-No.: 2005-H521-64
Georgetown University Law Center Scholarship @ GEORGETOWN LAW 2005 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 2795, the "Patent Act of 2005": Hearing Before the Subcomm. on Courts, the Internet, and
More informationCOMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE AND CLAIMS - 1 -
COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON REQUIREMENTS FOR DISCLOSURE AND CLAIMS - 1 - CONTENTS Comparison Outline (i) Legal bases concerning the requirements for disclosure and claims (1) Relevant provisions in laws
More informationCOMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO)
COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON INVENTIVE STEP (JPO - KIPO - SIPO) CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative criteria
More informationEUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL
EUROPEAN COMMISSION COMMUNITY PATENT CONSULTATION COMPTIA S RESPONSES BRUSSELS, 18 APRIL 2006 http://www.comptia.org 2006 The Computing Technology Industry Association, Inc. The Patent System in Europe
More informationGeneral Sales and Delivery Conditions. Institut für Mikroelektronik Stuttgart Public Law Foundation (as follows: IMS)
1. Scope of Applicability General Sales and Delivery Conditions of Institut für Mikroelektronik Stuttgart Public Law Foundation (as follows: IMS) (1) These IMS Conditions apply exclusively; any contractual
More informationDecision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) 17 August 2011 Case No. I ZR 57/09
IIC (2013) 44: 132 DOI 10.1007/s40319-012-0017-y DECISION TRADE MARK LAW Germany Perfume Stick (Stiftparfüm) Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on Certain
More informationPatent Infringement Litigation Case Study (1)
Patent Infringement Litigation Case Study (1) Mr. Shohei Oguri * Patent Attorney, Partner EIKOH PATENT OFFICE Case 1 : The Case Concerning the Doctrine of Equivalents 1 Fig.1-1: Examination of Infringement
More informationRemedies: Injunction and Damages. 1. General
VI. Remedies: Injunction and Damages 1. General If infringement is found and validity of the patent is not denied by the court, then the patentee is entitled to the remedies of both injunction and damages
More informationCOMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 -
COMPARATIVE STUDY REPORT ON TRILATERAL PROJECT 12.4 INVENTIVE STEP - 1 - CONTENTS PAGE COMPARISON OUTLINE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS I. Determining inventive step 1 1 A. Judicial, legislative or administrative
More information24 Criteria for the Recognition of Inventors and the Procedure to Settle Disputes about the Recognition of Inventors
24 Criteria for the Recognition of Inventors and the Procedure to Settle Disputes about the Recognition of Inventors Research Fellow: Toshitaka Kudo Under the existing Japanese laws, the indication of
More information11th Annual Patent Law Institute
INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY Course Handbook Series Number G-1316 11th Annual Patent Law Institute Co-Chairs Scott M. Alter Douglas R. Nemec John M. White To order this book, call (800) 260-4PLI or fax us at
More informationManual of Hantei (Advisory Opinion) for Essentiality. Check
Manual of Hantei (Advisory Opinion) for Essentiality Check March 2018 Trial and Appeal Department Japan Patent Office Table of Contents 1. Background... 1 2. Introduction to the Operation... 2 (1) Purpose
More informationNorway. Norway. By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS
Norway By Rune Nordengen, Bull & Co Advokatfirma AS 1. What are the most effective ways for a European patent holder whose rights cover your jurisdiction to enforce its rights in your jurisdiction? Cases
More informationCA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) President of the European Patent Office
CA/PL 7/99 Orig.: German Munich, 2.3.1999 SUBJECT: Revision of the EPC: Articles 52(4) and 54(5) DRAWN UP BY: ADDRESSEES: President of the European Patent Office Committee on Patent Law (for opinion) SUMMARY
More informationDoctrine of Equivalents: Recent Developments in Germany
Doctrine of Equivalents: Recent Developments in Germany Young EPLAW Congress Brussels 24 April 2017 Ole Dirks decisively different Introduction Legal framework: Art. 69 para. 1 EPC / Sec. 14 German Patents
More informationEffective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents
Effective Mechanisms for Challenging the Validity of Patents Walter Holzer 1 S.G.D.G. Patents are granted with a presumption of validity. 2 A patent examiner simply cannot be aware of all facts and circumstances
More informationThe German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR)
The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) The Secretary General German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11. RheinAtrium.
More informationProcedures of Second Instance Related to Civil Disputes. over Patent Infringement
Procedures of Second Instance Related to Civil Disputes over Patent Infringement 86 Procedures of Second Instance Related to Civil Disputes over Patent Infringement I. Trial System in China China practices
More informationUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Audatex North America Inc. v. Mitchell International Inc. Doc. 1 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 1 1 AUDATEX NORTH AMERICA INC., Plaintiff, v. MITCHELL INTERNATIONAL, INC.,
More informationCircuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 31, 1883.
910 v.14, no.15-58 STARRETT V. ATHOL MACHINE CO. AND OTHERS. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. January 31, 1883. 1. MANUFACTURING PABTNERSHD? INFRINGEMENT OF PATENT RESPONSIBILITY. Where a manufacturing
More informationDate May 16, 2014 Court Intellectual Property High Court, Case number 2013 (Ne) 10043
Date May 16, 2014 Court Intellectual Property High Court, Case number 2013 (Ne) 10043 Special Division A case in which the court found that the appellee's products fall within the technical scope of the
More informationFederal Circuit Provides Guidance on Claim Selection Procedures and Federal Jurisdiction Over Patent License Disputes
Federal Circuit Provides Guidance on Claim Selection Procedures and Federal Jurisdiction Over Patent License Disputes SUMMARY Last week, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued
More informationBLOOMER V. STOLLEY. [5 McLean, 158; 1 8 West. Law J. 158; 1 Fish. Pat. R. 376.] Circuit Court, D. Ohio. July, 1850.
BLOOMER V. STOLLEY. Case No. 1,559. [5 McLean, 158; 1 8 West. Law J. 158; 1 Fish. Pat. R. 376.] Circuit Court, D. Ohio. July, 1850. PATENTS POWER OF CONGRESS CONSTITUTIONAL LAW EXTENSION OF PATENT UNDER
More informationLiability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Question Q204P National Group: The Netherlands Title: Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Contributors: John Allen, Klaas Bisschop, Arnout Gieske, Willem
More informationGeneral Delivery Provisions for KUNZE Food Solutions GmbH
General Delivery Provisions for KUNZE Food Solutions GmbH 1 Foreword 1. Only our provisions for delivery shall apply. Contrary or deviating provisions from the purchaser shall not be acknowledged by us.
More informationThe Assertion of Patents in Germany. Dr. Roland Kehrwald Wildanger Kehrwald Graf v. Schwerin & Partner mbb
The Assertion of Patents in Germany Dr. Roland Kehrwald Wildanger Kehrwald Graf v. Schwerin & Partner mbb October 2016 Overview of Contents Introduction and subject of presentation A. Perspective of Patent
More informationPatent Claims. Formal requirements and allowable amendments. 2005Jaroslav Potuznik
Patent Claims Formal requirements and allowable amendments 2005Jaroslav Potuznik Examination as to formal requirements (compliance with Articles 42 to 52) is performed according Art. 54, upon the filing.
More informationThe German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR)
The German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) The Secretary General Deutsche Vereinigung für gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht e.v. Konrad-Adenauer-Ufer 11. RheinAtrium.
More informationPatent Invalidation Defense v. Correction of Claims Counter-Assertion in Patent Infringement Litigation
Patent Invalidation Defense v. of Claims Counter-Assertion in Patent Infringement Litigation January 27, 2009 TMI Associates Yoshi Inaba Current Situation for Patent Infringement Litigation 2 1 Latest
More informationPSMP. In contrast to a patent the duration of protection of a utility model is limited to ten years from the date of application.
UTILITY MODELS Utility models, like patents, are technical protective rights, i.e. a technical background must form the basis of the protection request. The utility model act (GbrMG) also rules in 1 (1)
More informationContent. 01/06/2018 General Procurement Cl. 2.3 E + 15 years, 99 years Copy: years Public Page 1 of 8
Content 1 Validity of the contractual conditions/contractual components... 2 2 Regulations relating to service provision... 2 3 Deadlines... 4 4 Change and additional services... 5 5 Acceptance... 6 6
More informationExCo Berlin, Germany
A I P P I ASSOCIATION INTERNATIONALE POUR LA PROTECTION DE LA PROPRIETE INTELLECTUELLE INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION FOR THE PROTECTION OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY INTERNATIONALE VEREINIGUNG FÜR DEN SCHUTZ DES
More informationti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany There is no "European" litigation system.
Wolfgang Festl-Wietek of Viering Jentschura & Partner Speaker 11: 1 LSI Law Seminars International ti Litigating Patents Overseas: Country Specific Considerations Germany by Wolfgang Festl-Wietek Viering,
More informationPatents Act 1977, Secs. 3, 60, 125 ; European Patent Convention, Protocol on the Interpretation of Art "Kastner"
28 IIC 114 (1997) UNITED KINGDOM Patents Act 1977, Secs. 3, 60, 125 ; European Patent Convention, Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 - "Kastner" 1. A patent specification must be construed as a
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 03-1548, -1627 CATALINA MARKETING INTERNATIONAL,
More information2:15-cv LJM-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION
2:15-cv-10137-LJM-MJH Doc # 1 Filed 01/14/15 Pg 1 of 6 Pg ID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS SHERMAN DIVISION AUTOMOTIVE BODY PARTS ASSOCIATION, CIVIL ACTION NO.
More informationORDER. Plaintiffs, ZOHO CORPORATION, Defendant. VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC AND VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., CAUSE NO.: A-13-CA SS.
I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 2U15 OCT 25 [: 37 AUSTIN DIVISION VERSATA SOFTWARE, INC AND VERSATA DEVELOPMENT GROUP, INC., Plaintiffs, CAUSE NO.: A-13-CA-00371-SS
More informationIntellectual Property High Court
Intellectual Property High Court 1. History of the Divisions of the Intellectual Property High Court ( IP High Court ) The Intellectual Property Division of the Tokyo High Court was first established in
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 8 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. Cir. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court
More informationDawn of an English Doctrine of Equivalents: immaterial variants infringe
Dawn of an English Doctrine of Equivalents: immaterial variants infringe November 2017 The Supreme Court reinvents patent infringement The Supreme Court s landmark judgment in Actavis v Eli Lilly is a
More informationNatural Resources Journal
Natural Resources Journal 17 Nat Resources J. 3 (Summer 1977) Summer 1977 Federal Water Pollution Control Act Amendments of 1972 Scott A. Taylor Susan Wayland Recommended Citation Scott A. Taylor & Susan
More informationQUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE. 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system?
QUESTIONNAIRE ON THE PATENT SYSTEM IN EUROPE Section 1 1.1 Do you agree that these are the basic features required of the patent system? - We agree that clear substantive rules on patentability should
More informationInformation Note. for IGC 39. Prepared by Mr. Ian Goss, the IGC Chair
Information Note for IGC 39 Prepared by Mr. Ian Goss, the IGC Chair Introduction 1. In accordance with the IGC s mandate for 2018/2019 and the work program for 2019, IGC 39 should undertake negotiations
More informationUnited States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Page 1 of 6 NOTE: Pursuant to Fed. R. 47.6, this disposition is not citeable as precedent. It is a public record. This disposition will appear in tables published periodically. United States Court of Appeals
More informationComments. made by the Conference of the German Data Protection Commissioners of the Federation and of the Länder. of 11 June 2012
Brandenburg State Commissioner for Data Protection and Access to Information Ms Dagmar Hartge Chairwoman of the Conference of the German Data Protection Commissioners of the Federation and of the Länder
More informationPatenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention
ECSS 2013 October 8, 2013, Amsterdam Patenting Software-related Inventions according to the European Patent Convention Yannis Skulikaris Director, Directorate 1.9.57 Computer-Implemented Inventions, Software
More informationDesign Protection in Europe
Design Protection in Europe www.bardehle.com 2 Content 5 1. Requirements for design protection in Europe 5 2. Overlap of design law and other IP rights 6 3. Design law in Germany and international design
More informationSupreme Court of the United States OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Argued February 26, 2014 Decided April 29, 2014
Supreme Court of the United States OCTANE FITNESS, LLC v. ICON HEALTH & FITNESS, INC. Argued February 26, 2014 Decided April 29, 2014 JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court. Section 285 of
More informationRecent Developments with respect to the Litigation Protocol. by Jochen Pagenberg Chairman of Special Committee Q165
REPORTS Recent Developments with respect to the Litigation Protocol by Jochen Pagenberg Chairman of Special Committee Q165 After the Resolution of AIPPI on Q 165 in Melbourne which recommended a concentration
More informationTerms and Conditions for Delivery and Payment
Terms and Conditions for Delivery and Payment valid from 12. October 2012 The following terms and conditions for delivery and payment shall govern all deliveries and services of Auer Lighting GmbH. These
More informationRome II and Intellectual Property Infringement
Rome II and Intellectual Property Infringement Dr. Kyung-Han Sohn* I. Introduction In 1968, the European Economic Community has set a Convention on Jurisdiction and the Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments
More informationH.R st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate)
H.R.2215 21st Century Department of Justice Appropriations Authorization Act (Enrolled as Agreed to or Passed by Both House and Senate) SEC. 13301. EDUCATIONAL USE COPYRIGHT EXEMPTION. (a) SHORT TITLE-
More informationRules of Good Scientific Practice
Leibniz Institute of Agricultural Development in Transition Economies (IAMO) Rules of Good Scientific Practice Preamble In 1998 the general meeting of the German Research Foundation (DFG) adopted principles
More informationIPPT , ECJ, Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch v Weller-Lindhorst
European Court of Justice, 23 April 2009, Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch v Weller-Lindhorst PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW The concept provision of services That the second indent of Article 5(1)(b) of Regulation
More informationFEDERAL CONSTITUTIONAL COURT. - 2 BvL 1/97 - IN THE NAME OF THE PEOPLE. In the proceedings on the constitutional review of the issue whether
Citation: BVerfG, 2 BvL 1/97 of 06/07/2000, paragraphs No. (1-46), http://www.bverfg.de/entscheidungen/ls20000607_2bvl000197en.html Free for non-commercial use. For commercial use, the Court's permission
More informationChapter 157. Hearings and Appeals. Subchapter EE. Informal Review, Formal Review, and Review by State Office of Administrative Hearings
Chapter 157. Hearings and Appeals Subchapter EE. Informal Review, Formal Review, and Review by State Office of Administrative Hearings Division 1. Informal Review Statutory Authority: The provisions of
More informationPregabalin: Where stand plausibility, Swiss-form claims, late amendment and more?
University College London IBIL Innovation Seminar 2018 Pregabalin: Where stand plausibility, Swiss-form claims, late amendment and more? Dr. Matthias Zigann Presiding Judge Regional Court Munich I Swiss
More informationCounterfeit Medicinal Products. SWITZERLAND Pestalozzi Attorneys at Law Ltd.
Counterfeit Medicinal Products SWITZERLAND Pestalozzi Attorneys at Law Ltd. CONTACT INFORMATION Lorenza Ferrari Hofer Pestalozzi Löwenstrasse 1 8001 Zurich, Switzerland 41.44.217.92.57 lorenza.ferrari@pestalozzilaw.com
More informationWIPO INTRODUCTORY SEMINAR ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
ORIGINAL: English DATE: April 2004 E SULTANATE OF OMAN SULTAN QABOOS UNIVERSITY WORLD INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ORGANIZATION WIPO INTRODUCTORY SEMINAR ON INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY organized by the World Intellectual
More informationLiability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement
Question Q204P National Group: Japan Group Title: Liability for contributory infringement of IPRs certain aspects of patent infringement Contributors: Takeshi Aoki, Koji Akutsu, Katsumi Isogai, Yusuke
More informationInformation provided by Germany
Information provided by Germany 1. Inventive step The requirement of inventive step is stipulated in Section 4 of the German Patent Act (Patentgesetz). It states that an invention shall be deemed to involve
More informationJapan Japon Japan. Report Q174. in the name of the Japanese Group
Japan Japon Japan Report Q174 in the name of the Japanese Group Jurisdiction and applicable law in the case of cross-border infringement (infringing acts) of intellectual property rights I. The state of
More informationthe UPC will have jurisdiction over certain European patents (see box The unitary patent and the UPC: a recap ).
THE UNITARY PATENT CENTRAL ENFORCEMENT OF PATENTS IN EUROPE In the second of a two-part series, Susie Middlemiss, Adam Baldwin and Laura Balfour of Slaughter and May examine the structure and procedures
More informationWhat is the Jurisdictional Significance of Extraterritoriality? - Three Irreconcilable Federal Court Decisions
What is the Jurisdictional Significance of Extraterritoriality? - Three Irreconcilable Federal Court Decisions Article Contributed by: Shorge Sato, Jenner and Block LLP Imagine the following hypothetical:
More informationIP Report 2011/II.
www.bardehle.com Content Patent Law 3 1. Court of Justice of the European Union: Work on a European Patent Jurisdiction System continues Effects of the Opinion of the Court of Justice (opinion of March
More informationTERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE
TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE ACCEPTANCE These Terms and Conditions of Sale (this Contract ) shall govern all orders for the purchase of products from StemCulture Inc. or its affiliates (hereinafter referred
More informationDRAFT PATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
DRAFT PATENT LAW OF GEORGIA CHAPTER I. GENERAL PROVISIONS ARTICLE 1 This Law regulates property and personal non-property relations formed in connection with the creation, legal protection and usage of
More informationpublicly outside for the
Q217 National Group: Title: Contributor: Date: Korean Group The patentability criteria for inventive step / non-obviousness LEE, Won-Hee May 2, 2011 I. Analysis of current law and case law Level of inventive
More informationSecond Medical Use Patents in Europe: Are the UK and Germany Swapping Approaches?
WHITE PAPER January 2019 Second Medical Use Patents in Europe: Are the UK and Germany Swapping Approaches? The UK Supreme Court s ruling in Warner Lambert v Actavis resulted from deliberations over the
More informationEx parte Miyazaki: Definite Difficulty With BPAI s New Standard for Indefiniteness. By Nicholas Plionis. Introduction
Ex parte Miyazaki: Definite Difficulty With BPAI s New Standard for Indefiniteness By Nicholas Plionis Introduction The specification and claims of a patent, particularly if the invention be at all complicated,
More informationChina Intellectual Properly News
LEGAL LANGUAGE SERVICES A n affiliateofalsinternationalt e l e p h o n e (212)766-4111 18 John Street T o l l Free (800) 788-0450 Suite 300 T e l e f a x (212) 349-0964 New York, NY 10038 w v, r w l e
More informationPatent Litigation. Block 2; Module Plaintiff /Claimant. Essentials. The patent proprietor as plaintiff/claimant in infringement proceedings
Patent litigation. Block 2. Module Essentials The patent proprietor as plaintiff/claimant in infringement proceedings In a patent infringement action and/or any other protective measure, the plaintiff/claimant
More informationCircuit Court, D. Massachusetts. October 7, 1890.
YesWeScan: The FEDERAL REPORTER CONSOLIDATED SAFETY VALVE CO. V. CROSBY STEAM GAGE & VALVE CO. Circuit Court, D. Massachusetts. October 7, 1890. 1. PATENTS FOR INVENTIONS DAMAGES FOR INFRINGEMENT. Defendants
More informationIsrael Israël Israel. Report Q192. in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND
Israel Israël Israel Report Q192 in the name of the Israeli Group by Tal BAND Acquiescence (tolerance) to infringement of Intellectual Property Rights Questions 1) The Groups are invited to indicate if
More informationBusiness Method Patents: Past, Present and Future
January 11, 2007 Business Method Patents: Past, Present and Future The United States Patent and Trademark Office ( Patent Office ) continues to grant business method patents covering a broad range of subject
More informationThe Law of Marking and Notice Further Developed By The Federal Circuit: The Amsted Case by Steven C. Sereboff Copyright 1994, All Rights Reserved
The Law of Marking and Notice Further Developed By The Federal Circuit: The Amsted Case by Steven C. Sereboff Copyright 1994, All Rights Reserved Recently, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
More informationEuropean Patent Litigation: An overview
European Patent Litigation: An overview Tuesday 28 September 2010 Hogan Lovells in partnership with the Association of Corporate Counsel Europe Your speaker panel Co-Chairs: Marten Bezemer Associate General
More informationafter hearing the Opinion of the Advocate General at the sitting on 20 November 2014, gives the following Judgment 1 This request for a preliminary ru
JUDGMENT OF THE COURT (Fifth Chamber) 16 July 2015 (*) (Competition Article 102 TFEU Undertaking holding a patent essential to a standard which has given a commitment, to the standardisation body, to grant
More informationDeferred examination of European patent applications. 2. German delegation 3. Netherlands delegation
CA/51/09 Orig.: en Munich, 06.03.2009 SUBJECT: SUBMITTED BY: ADDRESSEES: Deferred examination of European patent applications 1. Danish delegation 2. German delegation 3. Netherlands delegation Administrative
More informationINTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION Sixty-seventh session Geneva, 4 May 5 June and 6 July 7 August 2015 Check against delivery
INTERNATIONAL LAW COMMISSION Sixty-seventh session Geneva, 4 May 5 June and 6 July 7 August 2015 Check against delivery Identification of customary international law Statement of the Chairman of the Drafting
More informationGroups are invited to answer the following questions under their national laws:
Question Q228 National Group Title Contributor Sweden Prior User Rights Jonas Westerberg Date May 1, 2014 Questions I. Analysis of current law and case law Groups are invited to answer the following questions
More informationFisyon Trade General Business / Delivery and Payment Conditions
Fisyon Trade General Business / Delivery and Payment Conditions 1 General 1.1 These General Terms and Conditions of Sale shall apply to all of our business relationships with our customers. These Conditions
More informationPatents in Europe 2016/2017. Helping business compete in the global economy
In association with Greece Maria Athanassiadou and Henning Voelkel Dr Helen G Papaconstantinou and Partners Patents in Europe 2016/2017 Helping business compete in the global economy Dr Helen G Papaconstantinou
More information