In a recent ruling concerning the European Patent EP 1 793 917, the Local Division Düsseldorf elucidated key aspects of patent claim interpretation, addressing essential questions such as the influence of the description and drawing on claim interpretation and the relevance of prior art as mentioned in the patent.
Claim Interpretation in light of description and drawings
The court emphasized that the scope of a patent claim should not be strictly limited to the illustrations or preferred embodiments depicted in the patent drawings. Instead, claims ought to be interpreted based on the understanding of a skilled person, taking into account the entire patent description and drawings. This approach promotes a broader, more inclusive understanding of the patent’s scope, extending beyond merely specific examples. Essentially, a claim interpretation supported by the description and drawings as a whole is not confined by drawings that depict only a specific component shape.
Claim Interpretation in light of prior art
This decision highlights that even if prior art might influence the claim interpretation, it should not restrict such interpretation unless specifically discussed within the patent itself. Importantly, if the patent explicitly distinguishes itself from the prior art, interpretations that undermine this distinction should be avoided (cf. German Federal Court of Justice, Judgment in X ZR 16/17 - Scheinwerferbelüftungsystem)
This necessitates careful considerations during prosecution, especially regarding the placement of the "characterized in that" clause in relation to the pertinent prior art and/or in relation to any admission what might or might not be shown in a piece of prior art.
In the case at hand, the Court considered the discussed distinctions from the prior art. Consequently, there was no room for invoking a "Gillette defense" (being comparable to the German "Formstein objection", at least to a certain degree).
Publication Right
An interesting point in the decision was the discussion on publication rights. The court found that the publication of a decision should be reserved for instances where other legal measures do not sufficiently protect the claimant. This caution aims to avoid unnecessary punitive measures when existing judicial remedies adequately address the dispute.
Key Takeaways:
