=================
=================
14 W (pat) 23/24; 2026-4-27; Ergänzendes Schutzzertifikat für Safinamid
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Zur Abgrenzung einer Verwendung von Einzelwirkstoffen in Kombinationstherapien von einer Wirkstoffzusammensetzung im Sinne von Artikel 1 (b) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 469/2009.
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
On distinguishing the use of individual active ingredients in combination therapies from a combination of active ingredients within the meaning of Article 1(b) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009.
LEGAL PROVISIONS: § 16a Abs. 1 PatG; Art. 3(a), Art. 1(b) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 469/2009
AI FEEDBACK:
– The headnote separates a claim to an individual active ingredient used as add-on therapy from a claim to a fixed or otherwise defined combination product. The fact that another medicine is administered at the same time does not by itself turn the claimed product into a combination of active ingredients.
– The distinction matters for an SPC because the product named in the marketing authorisation and the product protected by the basic patent must be identified correctly. A use claim can protect a single active ingredient even where the therapeutic protocol requires concomitant treatment.
– Example from the case: claim 1 prescribed safinamide as add-on therapy to levodopa/PDI and allowed simultaneous, separate or sequential administration. Because it contained dosing instructions only for safinamide and contemplated separate supply, the court treated the protected product as safinamide alone and granted the SPC until 7 April 2029.
=================
=================
35 W (pat) 437/23; 2026-3-26; Erkennung von Netzwerkbedrohungen
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Wird während eines laufenden Gebrauchsmuster-Löschungsverfahrens das Streitgebrauchsmuster veräußert und im Register auf eine neue Rechtsinhaberin umgeschrieben, so erhält die neue Inhaberin hierdurch nicht ohne Weiteres die Beschwerdeberechtigung. Die Regelung des § 30 Abs. 3 Satz 3 PatG ist auf das Gebrauchsmuster-Löschungsverfahren nicht entsprechend anwendbar. Die neue Rechtsinhaberin muss, um zur Beschwerde berechtigt zu sein, noch vor Beschwerdeeinlegung gemäß § 265 Abs. 2 ZPO mit Zustimmung der Antragstellerin das Verfahren an Stelle der Rechtsvorgängerin übernommen haben (Abgrenzung zu BPatGE 33, 260 ff. = GRUR 1993, 549 ff. – Beschwerderecht).
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
If, during pending utility-model cancellation proceedings, the utility model in suit is transferred and the register is amended to show a new proprietor, that fact alone does not automatically confer entitlement to appeal on the new proprietor. Section 30(3), third sentence, PatG is not applicable by analogy to utility-model cancellation proceedings. To be entitled to appeal, the new proprietor must, before filing the appeal, have taken over the proceedings from its predecessor pursuant to section 265(2) ZPO with the cancellation applicant’s consent (distinguishing BPatGE 33, 260 et seq. = GRUR 1993, 549 et seq. – Entitlement to Appeal).
LEGAL PROVISIONS: GebrMG § 18 Abs. 2 Satz 1; PatG § 30 Abs. 3 Satz 3, § 74 Abs. 1; ZPO § 265 Abs. 2
AI FEEDBACK:
– Registration of a transfer changes ownership of the utility model, but it does not automatically substitute the new owner as a party in an already pending cancellation case. Party status and appeal standing remain governed by procedural law.
– A new owner must enter the proceedings under section 265(2) ZPO with the opposing party’s consent before lodging an appeal. The special patent rule allowing broader participation after a transfer was not extended to utility models and cannot be imported by analogy.
– Example from the case: the utility model was transferred from Y …, Inc. to X … Limited during the DPMA proceedings. The former owner remained the party at first instance, no consented substitution occurred, and the appeal naming X … Limited was therefore dismissed as inadmissible.
=================
=================
14 W (pat) 7/25; 2026-3-23; Vorrichtung zum Brechen von Steinen
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Zu den Anforderungen an die Büroorganisation im Zusammenhang mit fristauslösenden Postsendungen des Deutschen Patent- und Markenamts und des Bundespatentgerichts.
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
On the requirements for office organisation in connection with postal items from the German Patent and Trade Mark Office and the Federal Patent Court that trigger procedural time limits.
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: § 123 PatG; § 4 Abs. 2 Satz 2 VwZG i. V. m. § 127 Abs. 1 PatG
CITED DECISIONS: BGH, GRUR 2019, 548 – Future-Institute
AI FEEDBACK:
– Reinstatement requires a complete and credible account showing that the missed deadline occurred despite proper care. For professional representatives, this includes concrete information about mail handling, reliable staff, instructions, supervision and deadline controls.
– A bare assertion that a registered letter never reached the office is insufficient where the postal receipt identifies the representative and the office cannot show a robust system for recording and processing deadline-triggering documents.
– Example from the case: the DPMA refusal was delivered by registered mail on 15 April 2025, but the appeal and fee were filed only on 9 June. The representative produced no adequate account of office safeguards, and similar unexplained delivery disputes had occurred before, so reinstatement was refused and the appeal was deemed not filed.
=================
=================
11 W (pat) 28/25; 2026-2-25; Hygienedeckel für Dosen
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Als Mindesterfordernis für den Anmeldetag einer Patentanmeldung verlangt § 35 Abs. 1 PatG unter anderem Angaben, die dem Anschein nach als Beschreibung anzusehen sind. Hierfür können grundsätzlich auch knappe Angaben – beispielsweise im Feld „Bezeichnung der Anmeldung“ des Anmeldeformulars – ausreichen, sofern diese Angaben über die bloße Bezeichnung hinaus den Gegenstand der Erfindung zumindest kurz in seinen technischen Gegebenheiten skizzieren und damit eine technische Lehre offenbaren. Beschränken sich die Angaben jedoch auf eine bloße Bezeichnung der Erfindung, ohne ihre technischen Gegebenheiten zumindest kurz zu beschreiben, so kann dies dem Anschein nach nicht als Beschreibung angesehen werden. Der Anmeldetag wird durch das Erfüllen der in § 35 Abs. 1 PatG genannten objektiven Gegebenheiten festgelegt. (Fortführung von BPatG, Beschluss vom 19. Juli 2007, 10 W (pat) 17/07)
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
As a minimum requirement for according a filing date to a patent application, section 35(1) PatG requires, among other things, information that appears to constitute a description. Brief information – for example in the “Title of the application” field of the application form – may in principle suffice, provided that it goes beyond merely naming the invention, at least briefly outlines the subject matter in terms of its technical features and thereby discloses a technical teaching. If, however, the information is confined to merely naming the invention without at least briefly describing its technical features, it cannot be regarded as a description even prima facie. The filing date is determined by the objective fulfilment of the requirements specified in section 35(1) PatG. (Following BPatG, decision of 19 July 2007, 10 W (pat) 17/07)
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: § 35 Abs. 1 PatG
CITED DECISIONS: 10 W (pat) 17/07, 25 W (pat) 72/05, 10 W (pat) 14/11, 10 W (pat) 21/10, 10 W (pat) 24/04, 10 W (pat) 37/06, 20 W (pat) 1/19, I ZR 166/08, BGH, GRUR 1966, 488 – Ferrit
AI FEEDBACK:
– A filing date does not require a formally complete patent description, but the material filed must contain at least some technical teaching. A title or statement of purpose alone is not enough unless it also sketches concrete technical characteristics.
– Whether a filing date exists is decided objectively from the documents received, not from the applicant’s intention or later agreement. Formal defects such as a missing signature can generally be cured and do not necessarily prevent a filing date.
– Example from the case: the October 2024 form merely said that a lid would protect cans from dust and insects and would contain five innovations; it disclosed no technical construction. The later five-page description filed on 30 April 2025 did qualify, so that date was the valid filing date and the application had to be returned to the DPMA for further processing.
=================
=================
35 W (pat) 411/23; 2026-2-3; Trocknung von Klärschlamm
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Ein großer zeitlicher Abstand zwischen einer z. B. aus dem Jahr 1921 stammenden Druckschrift und einer Internet-Veröffentlichung aus dem Jahr 2018 steht einer Kombination der beiderseitigen technischen Lehren durch eine Fachperson nicht zwingend im Wege und kann ggf. zur Verneinung eines erfinderischen Schritts führen. Dies gilt insbesondere in Bezug auf solche Gebiete der Technik, die sich durch sehr lange Entwicklungszyklen auszeichnen. In allen diesen Fällen bedarf es jedoch einer sorgfältigen Prüfung, ob sich der ältere Lösungsansatz noch so erkennbar im Umfeld der jüngeren Lehre befindet, dass eine Fachperson diesen herangezogen hätte (Fortführung von BGH, Urteil vom 31. Januar 2017, X ZR 119/14, GRUR 2017, 498, 501 – Gestricktes Schuhoberteil – und BGH, Urteil vom 5. November 2024, X ZR 125/22, GRUR 2025, 239, 245 – LP-Filterparameter-Umwandlung).
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
A large time gap between, for example, a printed publication dating from 1921 and an internet publication from 2018 does not necessarily prevent a skilled person from combining their respective technical teachings and may, where appropriate, lead to a finding that no inventive step is present. This applies in particular to technical fields characterised by very long development cycles. In all such cases, however, it must be examined carefully whether the older approach remains sufficiently recognisable within the technical environment of the more recent teaching that the skilled person would have relied on it (following BGH, judgment of 31 January 2017, X ZR 119/14, GRUR 2017, 498, 501 – Knitted Shoe Upper – and BGH, judgment of 5 November 2024, X ZR 125/22, GRUR 2025, 239, 245 – LP Filter Parameter Conversion).
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
OPPOSING-PARTY: …; …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: GebrMG § 1 Abs. 1; GebrMG § 15 Abs. 1 Nr. 1
CITED DECISIONS: X ZR 119/14 – Gestricktes Schuhoberteil, X ZR 125/22 – LP-Filterparameter-Umwandlung, X ZR 49/09 – Ziehmaschinenzugeinheit II, X ZB 16/17, X ZR 85/96
AI FEEDBACK:
– Age alone does not remove prior art from the skilled person’s field of vision. The decisive question is whether the old concept remained technically relevant and whether there was a concrete reason to combine it with the newer teaching.
– Long development cycles weaken any inference that an old disclosure was abandoned. Courts must nevertheless guard against hindsight and verify that the common technical context and the objective problem supplied a real motivation for the combination.
– Example from the case: a 1921 dryer already used stacked drying trays and scraper conveyors, while a 2018 NEWtainer publication taught modular drying plants in standard containers. Because bulk-material drying still used the same basic technology, combining the old conveying concept with the newer container modularity made the claimed sludge dryer obvious and the utility model was cancelled.
=================
=================
3 Ni 6/24 (EP); 2025-12-16; Lineares TIC10
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
1. Eine niedermolekulare chemische Verbindung für eine medizinische Verwendung, die sich sowohl mit dem chemischen Namen als auch mit einer Strukturformel eindeutig charakterisieren lässt, ist durch ihre Hinterlegung nicht offenbart, da lediglich für biotechnologische Erfindungen ausnahmsweise Offenbarungssurrogate, namentlich eine Hinterlegung der biologischen Materialien, in Betracht kommen.
2. Eine derartige Verbindung ist kommerziell nur erhältlich, sofern es sich um einen am Prioritätstag bereits zugelassenen Wirkstoff, der jederzeit über den einschlägigen Fachhandel bezogen werden konnte, bzw. um ein in Chemikalienkatalogen angebotenes Produkt handelt (Abgrenzung zu BGH, Urteil vom 18.11.2010 – Xa ZR 149/07, GRUR 2011, 129, Rn. 45 – Fentanyl-TTS).
3. Ist die zum Anmelde- oder Prioritätstag im Streitpatent durch einen Datenbankeintrag für die beanspruchte medizinische Verwendung in Bezug genommene Verbindung nicht wirksam, ist die durch das Streitpatent gelehrte Erfindung nicht brauchbar und damit nicht ausführbar. Eine danach vorgenommene Änderung des Dateneintrags in Richtung auf eine wirksame Verbindung ist ohne Belang.
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
1. A low-molecular-weight chemical compound for a medical use which can be unambiguously characterised both by its chemical name and by a structural formula is not disclosed by depositing it, because substitutes for disclosure – in particular the deposit of biological material – are available only exceptionally for biotechnological inventions.
2. Such a compound is commercially available only if, at the priority date, it was an already authorised active ingredient that could at any time be obtained through the relevant specialist trade, or a product offered in chemical catalogues (distinguishing BGH, judgment of 18 November 2010 – Xa ZR 149/07, GRUR 2011, 129, para. 45 – Fentanyl TTS).
3. If the compound referred to in the patent in suit by a database entry for the claimed medical use was ineffective at the filing or priority date, the invention taught by the patent is not workable and therefore not sufficiently disclosed. A subsequent amendment of the database entry towards an effective compound is irrelevant.
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
OPPOSING-PARTY: …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: Art. II § 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 IntPatÜG; Art. 138 Abs. 1 Buchst. b) EPÜ i. V. m. Art. 83 EPÜ; Art. II § 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 IntPatÜG; Art. 138 Abs. 1 Buchst. c) EPÜ i. V. m. Art. 100 Buchst. c) EPÜ; § 34 Abs. 8 PatG; Regel 31 bis 34 EPÜ AusfO
CITED DECISIONS: Xa ZR 149/07 – Fentanyl-TTS, 3 Ni 37/07 – Cetirizin, X ZR 68/08 – Memantin, X ZB 9/70, X ZB 18/83, X ZB 13/90, X ZB 6/05, X ZB 18/95, 3 Ni 48/06
AI FEEDBACK:
– Small-molecule chemistry ordinarily requires an enabling identification by a chemical name, structural formula or equivalent reproducible teaching. A sample deposit is not a recognised substitute in the way that a biological-material deposit can be for certain biotechnology inventions.
– “Commercial availability” is also a demanding concept: an obscure sample held by a research depositary is not enough. The skilled person must be able to obtain the substance through ordinary commercial channels at the relevant date.
– Example from the case: the patent identified NSC350625/TIC10 through an NCI database entry that showed a linear tricyclic structure at the 2011 priority date. That linear isomer was ineffective against cancer, while the database was corrected only in 2014 to the effective angular isomer. Because the effective compound was neither properly identified nor ordinarily obtainable at the priority date, the patent was held insufficient and revoked in full.
=================
=================
12 W (pat) 26/23; 2025-12-16; Stahlkolben
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Ob Figuren in Patentveröffentlichungen als lediglich schematische Darstellungen anzusehen sind, wie sie üblicherweise in Patentschriften zu finden sind (BGH, Beschluss vom 16. Oktober 2012, X ZB 10/11 – Steckverbindung), oder als maßstabsgerechte Zeichnungen, ist eine Frage des Einzelfalls, die aus der Sicht des Fachmanns zu beantworten ist, an den sich die Erfindung richtet.
Der Fachmann berücksichtigt dabei neben der Art der Darstellung vor allem die Funktion die der jeweiligen Figur zukommt, wobei für das Vorliegen einer maßstabsgerechten Zeichnung insbesondere spricht, wenn diese dazu dient, in der Beschreibung gelehrte Größenverhältnisse zu veranschaulichen, und diesbezüglich Beschreibung und Figur übereinstimmen.
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
Whether figures in patent publications are to be regarded merely as schematic representations of the kind commonly found in patent specifications (BGH, decision of 16 October 2012, X ZB 10/11 – Plug Connection), or as drawings made to scale, is a question to be decided case by case from the perspective of the skilled person to whom the invention is addressed.
In addition to the manner of presentation, the skilled person considers above all the function of the particular figure. A drawing is particularly likely to be to scale where it is intended to illustrate dimensional relationships taught in the description and the description and figure are consistent in that respect.
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
OPPOSING-PARTY: …; …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: § 3 Abs. 1 PatG
CITED DECISIONS: X ZB 10/11 – Steckverbindung
AI FEEDBACK:
– Patent drawings are not automatically excluded as sources of quantitative disclosure. Their evidential value depends on how the skilled reader understands their purpose, precision and relationship to the written description.
– Where the description teaches specific dimensional relationships and the figures consistently visualise those relationships, measurements or proportions in the figures may form part of the disclosure. A generic drafting convention that figures are “schematic” cannot replace the case-specific assessment.
– Example from the case: D1 described a steel piston using several percentage-based dimensions and depicted the same proportions consistently in figures 1 to 5. The court treated those figures as scale drawings, derived the pin-diameter and pin-length ratios from them, and found claim 1 not novel.
=================
=================
14 W (pat) 28/23; 2025-12-12; Ciclesonid
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Vorabentscheidungsersuchen zur Auslegung des Artikels 3(d) der Verordnung (EG) Nr. 469/2009 betreffend das Kriterium einer ersten Genehmigung im Hinblick auf Genehmigungen gemäß den Richtlinien 2001/82/EG (Tierarzneimittel) und 2001/83/EG (Humanarzneimittel).
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
Request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 3(d) of Regulation (EC) No 469/2009 concerning the criterion of a first authorisation in relation to authorisations granted under Directives 2001/82/EC (veterinary medicinal products) and 2001/83/EC (medicinal products for human use).
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: § 16a Abs. 1 PatG; Art. 3(d) Verordnung (EG) Nr. 469/2009; Art. 267 AEUV
CITED DECISIONS: X ZB 21/01, C-31/03 – Pharmacia Italia, C-130/11 – Neurim, C-631/13 – Arne Forsgren, C-443/17 – Abraxis, C-673/18 – Santen
AI FEEDBACK:
– The referral asks whether “first authorisation” is assessed across both human and veterinary regulatory regimes or separately within each regime. The answer determines whether an earlier human authorisation blocks an SPC based on a later veterinary authorisation for the same active ingredient.
– The Federal Patent Court noted that veterinary approval may require wholly new studies that cannot simply reuse the human clinical data, but the SPC Regulation uses one product concept and expressly recognises authorisations under both directives. It therefore referred the interpretative issue to the Court of Justice rather than deciding it finally.
– Example from the case: ciclesonide had been authorised for human asthma treatment in 2005, while Aservo EquiHaler was first authorised in 2020 for asthma in horses after separate veterinary trials. The referred question is whether the 2020 veterinary authorisation can nevertheless count as the first authorisation for the veterinary SPC application.
=================
=================
35 W (pat) 424/22; 2025-12-10; Tür- und Fenstersensor
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
1. Ist eine teilweise Zurücknahme des Widerspruchs gegen den Löschungsantrag deshalb unwirksam, weil die Antragsgegnerin mit ihrer Erklärung auf eine unzulässige Fassung von neuen Schutzansprüchen Bezug genommen hat, so sind auch auf diesen Fall insoweit die Grundsätze der BGH-Entscheidung „Scherbeneis“ anzuwenden, als keine Bindungswirkung an eine unzulässige Anspruchsfassung eintritt. Einer Antragsgegnerin ist es daher auch in diesen Fällen regelmäßig gestattet, sich später wieder auf eine zulässige, in anderer Weise beschränkte Anspruchsfassung zurückzuziehen (im Anschluss an BGH, Beschluss vom 28. Oktober 1997 – X ZB 11/94, GRUR 1998, 910, 913 – Scherbeneis).
2. Der Nachweis, dass die Voraussetzungen der Neuheitsschonfrist nach § 3 Abs. 1 Satz 3 GebrMG gegeben sind, dass nämlich einerseits eine lückenlose Kette der tatsächlichen Wissensvermittlung vom Rechtsvorgänger (Erfinder) zur Gebrauchsmusterinhaberin und andererseits auch vom Erfinder zu den in Rede stehenden Vorveröffentlichungen und/oder Vorbenutzungen gegeben ist, kann in bestimmten Fällen auch durch einen Beweis des ersten Anscheins erbracht sein. Der Anscheinsbeweis kann sich auch auf die Person des Erfinders selbst beziehen (in Fortführung von BPatGE 21, 62, 64).
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
1. If a partial withdrawal of the opposition to a cancellation application is ineffective because the respondent’s declaration referred to an inadmissible version of new claims, the principles of the Federal Court of Justice’s “Scherbeneis” decision apply to the extent that no binding effect attaches to an inadmissible claim version. In such cases, the respondent is therefore generally permitted later to fall back on an admissible claim version limited in a different way (following BGH, decision of 28 October 1997 – X ZB 11/94, GRUR 1998, 910, 913 – Scherbeneis).
2. In certain cases, proof that the requirements of the grace period under section 3(1), third sentence, GebrMG are met – namely, that there is both an uninterrupted chain of actual communication of knowledge from the predecessor in title (inventor) to the utility-model proprietor and a corresponding chain from the inventor to the relevant prior publications and/or prior uses – may be established by prima facie evidence. The prima facie inference may also extend to the identity of the inventor (developing BPatGE 21, 62, 64).
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
OPPOSING-PARTY: …; …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: GebrMG § 3 Abs. 1 Satz 3; GebrMG § 17 Abs. 1 Satz 2
CITED DECISIONS: X ZB 11/94 – Scherbeneis, X ZR 77/94, X ZR 56/03, X ZR 111/22, X ZR 107/12, X ZR 119/09, X ZB 18/00, X ZR 5/16, X ZB 12/98, X ZR 65/05, X ZR 151/12, X ZB 31/92 – Akteneinsicht XIII, 35 W (pat) 18/18, T 0376/23
AI FEEDBACK:
– An ineffective procedural surrender tied to an inadmissible amended claim does not permanently trap the proprietor in that claim wording. Because an unlawful claim version cannot acquire binding effect, the proprietor may later defend a different, admissibly limited version.
– For the utility-model grace period, the proprietor must connect the inventor both to the proprietor and to the disclosure or use invoked as prior art. In a typical corporate setting, company and register facts can support that double link by prima facie inference rather than direct evidence of every communication.
– Example from the case: an earlier partial withdrawal referred to the inadmissible phrase “without additional parts such as a reflector,” but the proprietor was allowed to rely later on admissible auxiliary request HA2. Product publications shortly before filing were disregarded under the grace period because the named inventor was also the relevant group’s chairman, managing director and shareholder, supporting an uninterrupted chain from his work to both the proprietor and the publications.
=================
=================
30 W (pat) 518/23; 2025-10-23; Jura To Go
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
1. Die Bezeichnung „to go“ wird in der Werbesprache seit Langem als Hinweis auf die sofortige, unkomplizierte Mitnahmemöglichkeit eingesetzt. Soweit die Wendung dabei ursprünglich eine Verkaufsform in der Gastronomie bezeichnete (z. B. „Coffee to go“; „Pizza to go“), hat sie mittlerweile eine Bedeutungserweiterung erfahren und beschränkt sich nicht mehr nur auf Lebensmittel und Getränke, sondern bezieht sich werbeüblich auch allgemein auf Gegenstände oder Wissen, die für unterwegs mitgenommen oder in kurzer, schneller Form dargeboten werden.
2. Ausgehend von der werbeüblichen Verwendung der Wendung „to go“ im Bereich der Wissensvermittlung beschreibt Jura To Go die beanspruchten Waren und Dienstleistungen dahingehend, dass diese „Jura zum Mitnehmen“, also die Vermittlung juristischer Themen in kompakter und mobiler, flexibel abrufbarer Form, zum Thema und Inhalt haben. Mangels Unterscheidungskraft i. S. d. § 8 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 MarkenG ist das Zeichen von der Eintragung ausgeschlossen.
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
1. The expression “to go” has long been used in advertising to indicate an immediate and uncomplicated take-away option. Although the expression originally denoted a form of sale in the catering sector (for example, “coffee to go” or “pizza to go”), its meaning has since expanded and is no longer confined to food and beverages; in customary advertising usage it also refers generally to objects or knowledge that can be taken along or presented in a brief and rapid form.
2. In light of the customary advertising use of “to go” in the field of knowledge transfer, “Jura To Go” describes the goods and services claimed as “law to take away,” that is, as having the communication of legal topics in a compact, mobile and flexibly accessible format as their subject matter and content. Because it lacks distinctive character within the meaning of section 8(2) no. 1 MarkenG, the sign is excluded from registration.
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: § 8 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 MarkenG
CITED DECISIONS: 25 W (pat) 531/12, 29 W (pat) 7/15, 30 W (pat) 547/21, 30 W (pat) 23/10, 26 W (pat) 516/18, 29 W (pat) 512/14, 32 W (pat) 130/05 – Fruit to Go, 32 W (pat) 155/07, 30 W (pat) 545/17, 30 W (pat) 547/16, 28 W (pat) 534/22
AI FEEDBACK:
– A sign lacks distinctive character when the relevant public will understand it primarily as information about the nature, content or format of the goods and services rather than as an indication of commercial origin.
– “To go” has developed beyond takeaway food into a general promotional expression for compact, portable or quickly consumable content. Combining it with a subject name therefore often creates a descriptive message rather than a distinctive brand.
– Example from the case: the application covered legal-learning software, podcasts, books, course materials and legal education services. Consumers would read “Jura To Go” as legal knowledge available in a concise mobile format, so the mark was refused.
=================
=================
17 W (pat) 20/23; 2025-9-16; Logistikverfahren – personenlose Auslieferung von Waren
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Zur Bestimmung der „Aufgabe“ einer Erfindung.
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
On determining the “problem” underlying an invention.
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: §§ 1, 4 PatG
CITED DECISIONS: X ZB 3/06, T 641/00 – Two Identities/COMVIK, BGH – Wiedergabe topografischer Informationen, BGH – Bildstrom, BGH – Mirabegron, BGH – Quetiapin, BGH – Stereolithographiemaschine, BGH – Dreinahtschlauchfolienbeutel, BGH – Falzmaschine
AI FEEDBACK:
– The objective technical problem must be formulated neutrally and generally enough that it does not prejudge inventive step. Elements belonging to the claimed solution must not be recast as if they were already given to the skilled person.
– Non-technical business requirements may be included as constraints where they genuinely come from the client, but a detailed sequence that mirrors the claimed technical procedure is not a permissible problem formulation. Doubts about whether a particular starting task was obvious require a more abstract formulation.
– Example from the case: the examining division defined the problem as notifying recipients at an agreed place and time and telling each recipient whether the correct and complete goods had been removed. That formulation already reproduced the claimed workflow. The court rejected it, treated the in-vehicle RFID/GPS-supported guidance as a technical issue and remitted auxiliary request 3 for further examination.
=================
=================
3 Ni 18/23 (EP); 2025-9-16; Toner mit kristallinem Wachs
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
1. Zum Nachweis einer Anmeldung durch einen Nichtberechtigten nach Art. II § 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 IntPatÜG, Art. 138 Abs. 1 lit. E) i. V. m. Art. 60 Abs. 1 EPÜ sind konkrete Darlegungen erforderlich, dass die Klagepartei bereits vor dem Zeitrang des Streitpatents alleinigen Erfindungsbesitz an der streitpatentgemäßen Lehre hatte. Hierzu bedarf es einer detaillierten Gesamtschau, dass die als entnommen geltend gemachte Lehre mit der angemeldeten Lehre des Streitpatents übereinstimmt (BGH, Urt. v. 20. Oktober 2015 – X ZR 149/12, GRUR 2016, 265 Rn. 22 – Kfz-Stahlbauteil; Urt. v. 4. August 2020 – X ZR 38/19, GRUR 2020, 1186 Rn. 41 – Mitralklappenprothese; Urt. v. 26. Juli 2022 – X ZR 1/21, GRUR 2022, 1302 LS – Brustimplantat). Dies setzt eine Wesensgleichheit zwischen patentierter und entnommener Erfindung voraus, d. h. beide Erfindungen müssen nach Aufgabe und Lösung übereinstimmen. Dafür müssen alle wesentlichen Merkmale, die die Patentfähigkeit begründen, identisch sein (Schulte/Moufang, Patentgesetz mit EPÜ – Kommentar, 12. Auflage 2025, § 21 PatG, Rn. 46).
2. Eine Wesensgleichheit zwischen patentierter und entnommener Erfindung liegt demgemäß nicht vor, wenn die zum Nachweis des Erfindungsbesitzes angeführten Vorpatente keines der streitpatentgemäßen Merkmale offenbaren.
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
1. To prove that an application was filed by a person not entitled to it under Article II section 6(1) no. 5 IntPatÜG, Article 138(1)(e) in conjunction with Article 60(1) EPC, concrete submissions are required showing that, before the priority date of the patent in suit, the claimant alone possessed the invention embodied in the teaching of that patent. This requires a detailed overall assessment demonstrating that the teaching alleged to have been misappropriated corresponds to the teaching filed in the patent application (BGH, judgment of 20 October 2015 – X ZR 149/12, GRUR 2016, 265 para. 22 – Motor-Vehicle Steel Component; judgment of 4 August 2020 – X ZR 38/19, GRUR 2020, 1186 para. 41 – Mitral Valve Prosthesis; judgment of 26 July 2022 – X ZR 1/21, GRUR 2022, 1302 headnote – Breast Implant). This requires essential identity between the patented and the allegedly misappropriated inventions, meaning that they must correspond in both problem and solution. All essential features on which patentability is based must be identical.
2. Accordingly, there is no essential identity between the patented and allegedly misappropriated inventions where the earlier patents relied on to prove possession of the invention disclose none of the features of the patent in suit.
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
OPPOSING-PARTY: …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: Art. II § 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 IntPatÜG; Art. 138 Abs. 1 lit. E) i. V. m. Art. 60 Abs. 1 EPÜ
CITED DECISIONS: X ZR 149/12 – Kfz-Stahlbauteil, X ZR 38/19 – Mitralklappenprothese, X ZR 1/21 – Brustimplantat, X ZR 65/05, X ZR 115/96
AI FEEDBACK:
– A claim of wrongful entitlement is not established merely by showing earlier collaboration, general know-how or related patents. The claimant must prove possession, before the patent’s priority date, of the same inventive teaching that was later patented.
– “Essential identity” is assessed through the objective technical problem and solution. Differences are tolerable only where they are routine implementations that leave the inventive core untouched; all features responsible for patentability must otherwise correspond.
– Example from the case: the parties had operated a long-standing joint venture, and the claimant relied on earlier toner patents involving wax viscosity. Those patents did not disclose the claimed carbon-number distribution, crystallinity and molecular-weight features of the distilled wax, so they did not prove possession of the patented toner invention and the entitlement attack failed.
=================
=================
17 W (pat) 1/23; 2025-9-9; Kontaktplanprogramm-Erzeugungsvorrichtung
ORIGINAL-HEADNOTE:
Zur Bestimmung der „Aufgabe“ einer Erfindung.
AI-TRANSLATED-HEADNOTE:
On determining the “problem” underlying an invention.
PATENTOWNER/-APPLICANT: …
LEGAL PROVISIONS: §§ 1, 4 PatG
CITED DECISIONS: X ZB 3/06, T 641/00 – Two Identities/COMVIK, BGH – Wiedergabe topografischer Informationen, BGH – Mirabegron, BGH – Quetiapin, BGH – Stereolithographiemaschine, BGH – Dreinahtschlauchfolienbeutel, BGH – Falzmaschine
AI FEEDBACK:
– The technical problem is an analytical tool, not a way to build the claimed answer into the question. It must be formulated generally and neutrally so that the prior art’s incentives are assessed only at the inventive-step stage.
– Genuine external requirements may form part of the problem, including non-technical constraints, but solution features cannot be relabelled as requirements simply because the examiner considers them arbitrary or non-inventive. Where it is doubtful that the skilled person would have addressed the narrowly framed task, the task must be stated more abstractly.
– Example from the case: the examining division framed the problem as translating specific PLC subprograms from one mnemonic language into another using particular definition information. That formulation already incorporated the core translation architecture. The court held the approach improper, although it independently found the claims obvious over D1 and ordered repayment of the appeal fee because of the flawed examination reasoning.
=================
=================