Menu
Browse Options
Germany: Kommunikationskanal, Federal Court of Justice 11 February 2014

The FCJ held that the priority of an earlier application may be rightfully claimed if the technical information described for a specific embodiment or otherwise in in the application is seen by the skilled person as an example for the more general invention disclosed in the later application and if this more general teaching was disclosed in the prior application as part of the invention.

The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Germany: Anthocyanverbinding, Federal Court of Justice 10 December 2013

The FCJ held that legal provisions in force at the priority date must be taken into consideration when assessing novelty and inventive step of an invention. These legal provisions may incite the skilled person to work in a certain direction so that this makes the invention obvious.

The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Cistus Incanus II, Court of Appeal Düsseldorf 31 January 2013

The Court of Appeal Düsseldorf held that the offering of certain products by the defendants was not covered by the scope of the patent due to the specific “Swiss type” wording, which does not grant an absolute product protection, and due to the fact that the advertising of the defendants did not address the patented use specifically enough.

The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Fahrzeugscheibe, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 16 April 2013 ”

The FCJ held that the right to claim priority, which is in fact the right to file a follow-up application, can be transferred to a third party who was not the applicant of the earlier application. This transfer is governed by the law of the earlier application, in this case German law. Neither German law nor the EPC requires a specific form for such a transfer. Therefore, a transfer is also possible implicitly.

The full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Messelektronik fuer Coriolisdurchflussmesser, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 15 January 2013

The Federal Court of Justice held that under the specific circumstances of the case it was likely that a service manual regarding flow meter technology had been available to third parties. The Court considered as decisive the agreement between the party supplying the manual and the recipient. According to the Court it is relevant whether the parties agreed upon confidentiality either expressly or implicitly or whether it was to be expected under the circumstances that the recipient would keep the information confidential.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
Genveraenderungen, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 5 February 2013

According to the law on employee inventions, the inventor is entitled to information about all income generated by the employer from third parties in exploiting the invention. This information is the basis for claims of the employees against the employer for compensation. The Court confirmed the decisions of the lower courts and held that the income of the employer comprises all financial benefits related to the employees’ invention and its exploitation. This includes not only payments made to the employer but also other benefits such as patent protection.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...