Headnote (EPÜ Art. 83, Art. 138 Abs. 1 Buchst. b; IntPatÜbkG Art. II § 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 2; PatG § 34 Abs. 4, § 22 Abs. 1, § 21 Abs. 1 Nr. 2):

Eine Erfindung ist ausführbar offenbart, wenn die in der Patentanmeldung enthaltenen Angaben dem fachmännischen Leser so viel an technischer Information vermitteln, dass er mit seinem Fachwissen und seinem Fachkönnen in der Lage ist, die Erfindung erfolgreich auszuführen. Es ist nicht erforderlich, dass mindestens eine praktisch brauchbare Ausführungsform als solche unmittelbar und eindeutig offenbart ist.

Rdnr. 16:

Eine für die Ausführbarkeit ausreichende Offenbarung ist gegeben, wenn der mit den Merkmalen des Patentanspruchs umschriebene technische Erfolg vom Fachmann erreicht werden kann (vgl. Sen.Urt. v. 25.3.2010 – Xa ZR 36/07 Tz. 20). Dies setzt nicht voraus, dass mindestens eine mögliche Ausführung der Erfindung im Einzelnen so offenbart ist, wie dies für eine neuheitsschädliche Vorwegnahme (s. dazu BGHZ 179, 168 Tz. 25 – Olanzapin) oder die Übereinstimmung mit der Ursprungsoffenbarung (s. dazu Sen.Urt. v. 8.7.2010 – Xa ZR 124/07 Tz. 62 – Fälschungssicheres Dokument [zur Veröffentlichung vorgesehen]) erforderlich wäre. Sowohl bei der Neuheitsprüfung als auch bei der Prüfung, ob die im Patentanspruch enthaltene technische Lehre einer Erfindung ursprungsoffenbart ist, kommt es darauf an, ob der Fachmann diese Lehre dem jeweiligen Vergleichstext unmittelbar und eindeutig entnehmen kann. Dagegen stellt sich bei der Prüfung der Ausführbarkeit die Frage, ob die in der Anmeldung oder dem Patent enthaltenen Angaben dem fachmännischen Leser so viel an technischer Information vermitteln, dass er mit seinem Fachwissen und seinem Fachkönnen in der Lage ist, die Erfindung erfolgreich auszuführen. Der Offenbarungsbegriff unterscheidet sich somit je nach Kontext in seiner Funktion. Ebenso wenig wie eine im Verletzungsprozess angegriffene Ausführungsform im Patent offenbart sein muss, um unter seinen Gegenstand oder in seinen Schutzbereich zu fallen, erfordert eine ausführbare Offenbarung notwendig die (vollständige) Offenbarung einer Ausführungsform. Vielmehr reicht es aus, wenn der Fachmann ohne eigenes erfinderisches Bemühen Unvollständigkeiten ergänzen (vgl. schon RGZ 115, 280, 285) und sich notfalls mit Hilfe orientierender Versuche Klarheit verschaffen kann (vgl. BGHZ 112, 297 – Polyesterfäden; EPA, Technische Beschwerdekammer – T 14/83, ABl EPA. 1984, 105 = GRUR Int. 1984, 439 – Vinylchloridharze).

BGH, Urteil vom 13. Juli 2010 – Xa ZR 126/07 – Bundespatentgericht – Klammernahtgerät

seen on ipweblog.de.

Related articles

1. BGH: Zeichnung kann als Offenbarung eines Erfindungsmerkmals ausreichen (BGH Formteil) [Dr. Graf]
2. German high court lowers the first hurdle for the patentability of software (BGH Dynamische Dokumentengenerierung)

I saw a link to the following book on twitter today:

Against Intellectual Monopoly
Michele Boldrin, David K. Levine. Cambridge University Press, 1st edition (July 7, 2008), ISBN: 978-0521879286

Has anyone read the book yet and can tell me about the core arguments? Your comments are appreciated!

I will certainly read this book myself, but will probably not be able before this year’s christmas holiday season.

The complete book is available as PDF.

From amazon’s product description:

“Intellectual property” – patents and copyrights – have become controversial. We witness teenagers being sued for “pirating” music – and we observe AIDS patients in Africa dying due to lack of ability to pay for drugs that are high priced to satisfy patent holders. Are patents and copyrights essential to thriving creation and innovation – do we need them so that we all may enjoy fine music and good health? Across time and space the resounding answer is: No. So-called intellectual property is in fact an “intellectual monopoly” that hinders rather than helps the competitive free market regime that has delivered wealth and innovation to our doorsteps. This book has broad coverage of both copyrights and patents and is designed for a general audience, focusing on simple examples. The authors conclude that the only sensible policy to follow is to eliminate the patents and copyright systems as they currently exist.

T 0926/06, Reasons No. 19.2 – 19.4:

It is established case law of the boards of appeal that here is no objection in principle against further defining by reference to the drawings any features which were already claimed. This extends to features shown only in the drawings being introduced into the claim for greater precision. (T 169/83, OJ EPO 1985, 193, paragraph 2.5).

The incorporation into the claim of features taken from the drawings is, nevertheless, subject to the same restrictions that apply to any amendment, which is to say that the feature concerned – unless found expressis verbis in the application as filed – must be clearly and unambiguously derivable by the skilled person from the content of the application as a whole. If it is not, the amendment does not comply with Article 123(2) EPC.

It is also established case law that while it is permissible to use the drawings as a basis for providing greater precision in respect of features already claimed, it is not permissible to introduce new features which are selected arbitrarily from among the features of the drawings in the sense that it is not directly derivable from the application as originally filed that the feature can be isolated from other features of the drawings (T 191/93, paragraph 2.1).

Read the whole decision here.

Related articles

1. EPO: amending a generally worded claim with arbitrary specific features is inadmissible [T 0926/06]
2. T 765/07: The EPO’s Essentiality Test: What Is Essential? [K's law]
3. EPO requests applicants to provide search results of priority application

T 0926/06, Reasons No. 3.6:

[...] it is not permissible to import into a claim worded in general terms, arbitrary specific features from the description.

Read the whole decision here.

Related articles

1. EPO: claim amendments with features selected arbitrarily from the drawings are inadmissible [T 0926/06]
2. T997/06: “comprising” vs. “consisting of” in patent claims [K's law]
3. T 765/07: The EPO’s Essentiality Test: What Is Essential? [K's law]

Headnote

1. In proceedings before the opposition divisions, late-filed facts, evidence and related arguments, which go beyond the “indication of the facts, evidence and arguments” presented in the notice of opposition pursuant to Rule 55(c) EPC in support of the grounds of opposition on which the opposition is based, should only exceptionally be admitted into the proceedings if prima facie, there are clear reasons to suspect that such late-filed material would prejudice the maintenance of the European patent.

2. In proceedings before the boards of appeal, new facts, evidence and related arguments, which go beyond the “indication of facts, evidence and arguments” presented in the notice of opposition pursuant to Rule 55(c) EPC in support of the grounds of opposition on which the opposition is based, should only very exceptionally be admitted into the proceedings in the appropriate exercise of the board’s discretion, if such new material is prima facie highly relevant in the sense that it can reasonably be expected to change the eventual result and is thus highly likely to prejudice maintenance of the European patent; and having regard also to other relevant factors in the case, in particular whether the patentee objects to the admissibility of the new material and the reasons for any such objection, and the degree of procedural complication that its admission is likely to cause.

Read the whole decision T 1002/92 here.

Related articles

1. EPO: late filed documents do not have to be MORE relevant than those already in the procedure [T 807/04]
2. EPO: amending a generally worded claim with arbitrary specific features is inadmissible [T 0926/06]
3. EPO: claim amendments with features selected arbitrarily from the drawings are inadmissible [T 0926/06]

T 807/04:

1.2 Admittance into the proceedings of late-filed documents

1.2.1 The appellant considered that the decision of the opposition division did not give any reasoning why D11 to D14 were more relevant than those already in the proceedings.

The appellant is correct in so far as the opposition division in its decision merely stated with respect to their admittance that they were prima facie relevant to the question of novelty and/or inventive step (see point 3 of the reasons). However, the opposition division came to the conclusion that the subject-matter of independent claims 1 and 7 of the main request lacked novelty over D14 (see point 7); that the subject-matter of independent claim 1 of the second
auxiliary request lacked an inventive step over the combination of D12 and D14 (see point 12.2); and that the subject-matter of independent claim 7 of the second auxiliary request lacked novelty over D13 (see point 12.4).

The reasons why the opposition division admitted D12 to D14 into the proceedings are thus absolutely clear from this further reasoning in the decision. The Board would furthermore note that a document does not have to be more relevant than documents already in the proceedings in order for it to be admitted into the proceedings. It is sufficient that it could influence the outcome of the proceedings, for example in combination with a document already in the proceedings.

Related articles

1. EPO: admissibility of late-filed documents in opposition and appeal proceedings [T 1002/92]
2. Patents for software? European law and practice – EPO Brochure [EPO]
3. Communication under Rule 161 EPC is not a “communication” within the meaning of amended Rule 36(1) EPC [EPO]