In two decisions published yesterday on its website, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) overturned two decisions by the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht) invalidating the patents in suit for lack of novelty. Both decisions are remarkable not because they break new ground in (patent) law (they don't), but rather because the BGH corrects the fact finding of the lower court and finds in favour of the patentees. They fuel the impression that the Federal Court of Justice is more patent-friendly than the Bundespatentgericht, or, to put it another way, that the Federal Patent Court has become overly strict.
In the
first decision, designated a leading case (Leitsatzentscheidung) by the Court, the BGH finds that a key witness lacked credibility and concludes that the public prior use which led the Federal Patent Court to invalidate the patent for lack of novelty was not established. The patent at issue was
Nichia's
EP 936 682, an important patent concerning white light emitting diodes that has also been the subject of opposition proceedings before the EPO. The decision is remarkable because the Federal Court of Justice is bound by the fact finding of the lower court unless there are specific doubts regarding the correctness and completeness of the fact finding (§
529(1) Civil Procedure Act). The Court held that there were specific doubts as to the credibility of a key witness for the public prior use, whose testimony was inconsistent with that of other witnesses and established facts. The twist was that the witness had died in the meantime and could not be questioned again. This, so the BGH, did not preclude it from finding the testimony unpersuasive. After it had concluded that public prior use was not proven, the Court assessed inventive step based on the record before it and found the subject matter(s) of the claims to be inventive.
|
Fig. 1 of EP 1 389 985 |
In the
second decision, the Federal Patent Court had found that claim 1 of
EP 1 389 985 concerning a lower leg orthosis lacked novelty over the German utility model
DE 299 08 981. It upheld an auxiliary claim. The patentee appealed. The Federal Court of Justice held that the lower court had misconstrued the disclosure of the allegedly novelty destroying document and that the document failed to disclose all the features of the invention. It then went on to assess novelty over two additional documents, also finding the invention not anticipated, and assessed inventive step in a single paragraph, concluding the plaintiff had failed to show lack of inventive step. Again the patentee prevailed on appeal.
RECYCLABLE PAPER BEER BOTTLE
ReplyDeleteThis is Brother Error Code ts-02 and Brother Printer Error Code ts-02 as well this is best type of Brother Printer Code ts-02 and last one that is all about Brother Printer Error ts-02 and last one Brother Printer Error Code ts-02
ReplyDeleteFlights Booking
ReplyDeleteCheap Flights
Airlines Reservations
epson printer error code 0xf3
ReplyDeleteepson printer error code 0x9a
Epson printer error code 0xEA
Ways to Resolve Epson Error 0XF3
How to Make Your Epson Printer Work With Error Code 0x9a?
When it's Not a Paper Jam, but Displays Epson Error 0xEA & Scraping Sound? How to Fix?
Surrogacy Cost in Ukraine Nice Blog
ReplyDelete