When defining the technical problem underlying an invention, it may not simply be assumed that the person skilled in the art needed to address a particular problem. On the contrary, the technical problem must be formulated so generally and neutrally that the question as to which incentives a person skilled in the art obtained from the state of art, arises only when examining inventive step.
(a) Advantages of the invention that have only become evident once the invention was made, and at which therefore the skilled person would not have directed his efforts to further develop the state of the art, may not be used to define the technical problem underlying the invention (the Aufgabe of the invention).
(b) Depending on the conditions of the technical field and the circumstances of the individual case, any of several different ways to solve the problem can be regarded as obvious.
The German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, FCJ) has issued the decision “Bildstrom” (judgment of 26 February 2015, docket no. X ZR 37/13) dealing with the patentability of a system and a method for displaying an image stream.
The attacked patent EP 1474927 concerns a technical teaching for displaying an image stream, wherein at least two subset image streams are displayed simultaneously and the subset image streams are created from one original image stream. The original image stream may for example be recorded by a swallowable capsule and two subset image streams may e.g. show every second frame of the original image stream in original speed so that each frame is displayed [...]
In this judgment the Court of Appeals Düsseldorf held that the manifest preparation of a product for a specific use which is covered by a use claim can be seen in information on the packaging and in the patient information provided with the pharmaceutical product to the end user. It confirms earlier case law in that an infringement of a use claim requires a manifest preparation which clearly states that the product may be used for the patented indication (the specific medical use).
At a tradeshow in Düsseldorf the Defendant co-organized a so called “Turkish Pavilion” featuring several companies of the Turkish region “Samsun”. The Court held that this role of the Defendant was sufficient to be held liable for patent infringement, even where the Defendant itself did not manufacture or sell the products. Exhibiting at the tradeshow was considered as an offer for sale which would infringe the exclusive rights of the patentee.
The FCJ held that the Defendant in a nullity action is only required to prepare an auxiliary request following the preliminary opinion of the Federal Patent Court which takes those aspects into consideration which were mentioned by the Patent Court. In general, there is no reason for the Defendant to prepare additional auxiliary requests with regard to other attacks which were not addressed by the Patent Court in the preliminary opinion or which were considered by the Patent Court as not successful.