The Paris Central Division recently delivered a decision that provides insights into the interpretation of "common general knowledge" (CGK) under the Unified Patent Court (UPC) framework. This decision, which involved a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 875 740 B1 ("EP ‘740"), highlights how CGK is established and its role in determining the validity of patents.
The Court emphasized that CGK refers to information commonly known to skilled persons in their technical field through familiar sources such as textbooks, manuals, and databases. It does not encompass all publicly available prior art, such as individual patent applications or isolated products, unless they are recognized as standard design solutions in the field.
For me it is not entirely clear if the Central Division would also not accept a plurality of prior art sources showing all the same concept as evidence for such concept being CGK (which was confirmed by some decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO and the German Federal Patent Court). It seems, however, as if the Central Division would not accept such line of argumentation.
The Court rejected evidence based on isolated prior art references and utility model applications, stating they do not constitute CGK. The skilled person is presumed to turn to reliable, widely used sources rather than singular patents or niche publications when seeking guidance.
The decision confirmed that inventive step requires assessing whether the skilled person, using CGK, would have been led to the claimed invention in a non-obvious manner. In this case, prior art documents "Cross" and "Pan" were considered starting points, but their combination with CGK failed to render the invention obvious.
In the preceding blog post I reported on another very recent decision of the Central Division. In this decision the Division confirmed that even one single patent document can prove CGK and stated: “While it is in general questionable that a particular published patent application or a patent specification can be considered as an indication of common general knowledge, however the statement of the author of the patent that a teaching is widely spread at the time can used as evidence of the fact that this teaching forms part of common general knowledge.”
This ruling reiterates the importance of clearly defining CGK during litigation. Evidence must demonstrate that specific knowledge was widely known and regularly used by skilled persons at the relevant time. Parties should ensure their arguments on CGK are well-supported and avoid relying solely on isolated prior art references.
Outcome: The revocation action was dismissed, and EP ‘740 was maintained as granted. The case underscores the UPC's strict but balanced approach to CGK and inventive step.
