archive-de.com » DE » V » VJP.DE

Total: 713

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • Viering, Jentschura & Partner | equivalent patent infringement
    in the state of the art as cooking pans with a capsular base The only patent claim of the patent was directed to such cooking pans In case a cooking pan that has been manufactured in said fashion is heated the layers of the base of the pan and in particular the heat conductive layer are expanding Thereby peripheral deformations can occur If however the base of the pan is not completely plane the disadvantage arises that the base of the pan is not fully in contact with the heat source and the transmission of the heat to the cooking pan and its content is affected Thus the technical problem of the invention consisted in further developing a cooking pan with a capsular base so that peripheral deformations are avoided The solution of this problem according to the patent consisted in providing protrusions and or recesses on the sidewall of the protective cover which leads to a stiffening effect In case of the cooking pans of the defendant the protective stainless steel layer was not reaching laterally fully up to the actual base of the pan so that laterally only a part of the heat conductive layer was capsuled The courts of law of all instances did not regard this as a full capsule in the sense of the patent claim and therefore abnegated a literal patent infringement The court of appeal took the view that the lack of a full encapsulation of the heat conductive layer would not exclude equal effectiveness The advantage of full protection of the capsular base would not be relevant here The actual problem that the patent in litigation was dealing with the avoidance of a deformation of the base of the pan when heated could also occur in case of pans with incomplete capsulation Therefore the requirement of a capsular base could not create minimum requirements for the protection of the heat conductive layer because insofar this was a mere additional effect alongside the effect of enhanced stiffness in the peripheral area which was relevant for the invention and intended with the element 3 Decision The BGH does not share the point of view of the court of appeal in its decision and clarifies that all effects mentioned in the patent claim and the specification have to be achieved at least to a certain degree to justify the assumption of equal effectiveness It is explicated that for the question of equal effectiveness it would be crucial which individual effects offer the elements according to the patent seen isolated and in their entirety for the solution of the problem task that shall be solved with the patent claim and if these effects are achieved in the attacked embodiment by other means Accordingly it would be required to examine the patent claim with regard to which effects that can be achieved with its elements have to come together to solve the problem task it is based on according to the patent In accordance with the decision

    Original URL path: http://www.vjp.de/office-map/ip-news/2015-march/equivalent-patent-infringement/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive


  • Viering, Jentschura & Partner | bona fide protection
    translation of the patent specification within three months from the publication of the grant of the European patent According to Art II 3 Abs 5 IntPatÜbkG in case of an incorrect translation a person or entity who has started to make bona fide use of an invention in Germany or who has made effective and serious efforts for using the invention can continue the use for the needs of its own enterprise without royalty payments after publication of the corrected translation if said use would not constitute an infringement of the patent in the incorrect translation of the patent In the present case the originally filed translation of the litigated patent was incorrect in particular it was mentioned that the protrusions and recesses which were protected by the patent in their stabilizing effect are to be manufactured by use of a molding tool This was corrected insofar in a corrected translation which was filed not until the infringement proceedings before the district court as the relevant English version of the patent speaks of a compression tool instead of a molding tool In the attacked embodiment the rips on the side of the walls of the pan were manufactured with a compression tool 3 Decision The BGH discusses the requirements of a bona fide use of an incorrectly translated European Patent according to Art II 3 Abs 5 IntPatÜbkG old version in the decision The BGH takes a comparably liberal position in favor of the bona fide user In particular it is decided for the first time by the Highest German civil court that no knowledge of the incorrect translation has to be proven but that even a person that indisputably did not know the translation can claim bona fide protection Further the BGH undertakes a kind of fictive examination of the incorrect translation Only if a person skilled in the art when reading the translation had come to the conclusion e g due to a lacking of practicability or immanent contradictions that the translation could not be correct then bona fide no longer applies The BGH literally states Relying to bona fide would only be denied to the defendants if it had to be clear immediately to them due to their professional knowledge when reading the initially filed translation that the formation of the side wall of the floor as per the invention could not be mastered with a molding tool so that they had to come to the conclusion that the translation is not correct The BGH does not address the question whether there was indeed relevant bona fide in the present case Since the preliminary question of equivalent infringement had to be answered the BGH referred the case back to the Upper District Court of Munich It remains to be awaited how the court of appeal will apply the now clarified instructions of the BGH regarding the requirements of bona fide 4 Practical Implications Even though the decision is based on a legal provision that is no longer

    Original URL path: http://www.vjp.de/office-map/ip-news/2015-march/bona-fide-protection/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Viering, Jentschura & Partner | Fundamental violation of Article 113 EPC / APTALIS PHARMA
    1 08 dated 15 July 2008 item 3 and subsequent decisions the Enlarged Board of Appeal finds that a petitioner to succeed with this objection has to establish a that the contested decision was based on an assessment or on reasoning relating to grounds or evidence which the petitioner was not aware of and had no opportunity to comment upon and b that a causal link existed between this procedural

    Original URL path: http://www.vjp.de/office-map/ip-news/2015-january-and-february/fundamental-violation-of-article-113-epc-aptalis-pharma/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Viering, Jentschura & Partner | Method for low pressure casting metal form
    altering a party s case the facts and evidence relied on can be assembled in different ways using different arguments On the other hand there will clearly be many situations where a new argument does not change a party s case For example it may be just be a different way of looking at the same point So in the present appeal it might be said that the appellant s case on novelty is that D2 is novelty destroying The Board considers however that this is too simplistic a view In reality the two ways of presenting the novelty attack set out in Point VIII a above are different in substance and in the Board s view are different cases Such a conclusion is very case specific i e it depends very much on the specific circumstances of the appeal but the Board reaches it taking into account in particular the fact that the two attacks are inconsistent and the second attack is a departure from and not just a development of the first Nevertheless there are many statements in the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal which clearly state that new arguments can always be admitted or advanced by a party if such arguments are based on facts or evidence which are already part of the proceedings It is therefore necessary to examine how this apparent conflict is to be resolved The main principle to be extracted from G 4 92 is therefore that a decision may not be taken at the end of oral proceedings based on new facts or evidence presented for the first time during those oral proceedings in the absence of the prejudiced party The subsidiary point is that in principle such a decision can be based on new arguments presented at such oral proceedings With effect from 1 May 2003 the RPBA were amended and inter alia the provisions of what are now Articles 12 13 and 15 were introduced OJ EPO 2003 89 In what follows references will be to the current numbering of the articles although this numbering has changed over time This was part of a major revision of the RPBA the first draft of which was prepared by the Procedure Working Party as part of a report to the chairmen and members of the boards of appeal the PWP Report In paragraphs 1 2 to 1 4 of the PWP Report it was explained that the changes being made contained measures which were intended to increase the efficiency and shorten the length of appeal proceedings these measures relating to the core of appeal proceedings namely written and oral proceedings and certain related matters such as late filing and costs The existing philosophy of the appeal procedure as developed by the boards and the Enlarged Board was to be maintained in particular the established discretionary powers of the Boards while introducing some elements of case law into the RPBA and at the same time seeking to ensure that the RPBA contained

    Original URL path: http://www.vjp.de/office-map/ip-news/2015-january-and-february/method-for-low-pressure-casting-metal-form/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Viering, Jentschura & Partner | Product indicator for shelving
    to suspect that such late filed documents prejudice the maintenance of the European patent in suit Furthermore a board of appeal should only overrule the way in which a department of first instance has exercised its discretion when deciding on a particular case if it concludes that it has done so according to the wrong principles or without taking into account the right principles or in an unreasonable way T 640 91 OJ 1994 918 It is true that the decision does not explicitly state that D8 is admitted into the proceedings nor that D8 is prima facie relevant However since the lack of novelty ground is based solely on D8 consideration of the prima facie relevance of novelty is in this case inseparable from the prima facie relevance of D8 Furthermore admittance of this ground into the proceedings implies admittance of D8 since without D8 the ground fails In effect therefore D8 was admitted into the proceedings by the opposition division together with the late filed ground of novelty The division held that prima facie admission of the novelty ground based on D8 would lead to a different outcome of the proceedings in other words prejudiced the maintenance of

    Original URL path: http://www.vjp.de/office-map/ip-news/2015-january-and-february/product-indicator-for-shelving/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Viering, Jentschura & Partner | Honeycomb filter for clarifying exhaust gas
    could have been presented or were not admitted in the first instance proceedings When deciding on this issue it is relevant to consider why the specific request s now on file could have been or could not have been presented during the first instance proceedings The circumstances of the present case which demonstrate that a deliberate choice was made by the proprietor not to maintain a sole pre existing request including a claim 1 of broader scope but instead to limited the claims to ones having the features mentioned above for whatever reason are considered by the Board to fit the rationale underlying Article 12 4 RPBA By doing so the Opposition Division was prevented from issuing a decision on a request including the broader subject matter The primary purpose of an appeal is to provide the opportunity for a final instance review of the decision of the department of first instance thereby in inter partes proceedings allowing the losing party to challenge the decision of an opposition division on its merits and to obtain a judicial ruling as to whether the decision of the opposition division is correct G 9 91 and G 10 91 OJ EPO 1993 408

    Original URL path: http://www.vjp.de/office-map/ip-news/2015-january-and-february/honeycomb-filter-for-clarifying-exhaust-gas/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Viering, Jentschura & Partner | Elektronisches Gerät für den Einsatz in explosionsgefährdeten Bereichen
    Datum 28 Oktober 2014 Das Erfüllen von sicherheitsrelevanten Normen ist für den Fachmann für Geräte in explosionsgefährdeten Bereichen selbstverständlich Ohne die Normen einzuhalten lassen sich derartige Geräte nicht einsetzten Am Anmeldetag der dem Streitpatent zugrunde liegenden Anmeldung waren die beanspruchten Schutzklassen der Europäischen Normen bereits in Kraft Für einen Fachmann der die Lehre des Dokuments E4 am Anmeldetag umsetzen wollte war es daher selbstverständlich den in Dokument E4 angegebenen Explosionsschutz

    Original URL path: http://www.vjp.de/office-map/ip-news/2015-january-and-february/elektronisches-geraet-fuer-den-einsatz-in-explosionsgefaehrdeten-bereichen/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Viering, Jentschura & Partner | Content-basiertes Billing in IP-Netzwerken / Togewa
    1 gegenüber D1 wonach auf Inhalte mittels des Control Gateway Moduls basierend auf der Zieladresse des Zugriffs auf Kostenpflichtigkeit überprüft wird liegt ein technischer Effekt zugrunde nämlich vor dem Zugriff kostenpflichtige Inhalte von kostenlosen zu unterscheiden Daraus ergibt sich die objektive technische Aufgabe Inhalte vor dem Zugriff zu unterscheiden Dies geht entgegen der Argumentation der Beschwerdegegnerin über eine rein kommerzielle Aufgabenstellung hinaus D1 gibt bereits die Anregung für das Verrechnen von Value Added Services VAS wie z B das sog Billing for Content vgl D1 Seite 11 Zeilen 8 und 9 Insbesondere verweist D1 auf das aus dem Stand der Technik bekannte TAP3 Verfahren welches nicht nur für Billing zwischen GSM Dienstanbietern sondern auch mit Nicht GSM Dienstanbietern verwendet werden kann siehe D1 Seite 10 Zeile 25 ff Darüber hinaus schlägt D1 auch vor basierend auf der Authentifizierung mittels der IMSI benutzerspezifische Service Autorisierung zur Benutzung unterschiedlicher Dienste zu erteilen und oder benutzerspezifisches Billing der beanspruchten Leistung durchzuführen vgl oben D1 Seite 24 Zeilen 6 bis 10 Dabei stimmt die Kammer der Beschwerdegegnerin zu dass anders als von der Beschwerdeführerin mehrfach dargestellt vgl Seite 9 zweiter Absatz des Schreibens vom 1 Oktober 2014 der Gegenstand von Anspruch 1 nicht auf eine dateninhalts spezifische Vergebührung beschränkt ist Vielmehr erfordert der Wortlaut des Anspruch 1 lediglich einen Zugriff auf Inhalte eines Content Providers Zum Zweck der Vergebührung werden Identität des IP Nodes 20 und oder Zeitdauer und oder Anbieter der beanspruchten Leistung erfasst Es wird nicht näher spezifiziert dass einzelne Inhalte unterschieden werden Dies erfolgt nach D9 über einen Packet Node PN der einen GGSN Gateway GPRS Support Node emuliert vgl D9 Zusammenfassung mit der APN Access Point Name als Adresse Auch D1 offenbart im Zusammenhang mit dem benutzerspezifischen Billing der beanspruchten Leistung die Verwendung von GGSN über ein GRX Modul siehe

    Original URL path: http://www.vjp.de/office-map/ip-news/2015-january-and-february/content-basiertes-billing-in-ip-netzwerken-togewa/ (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •