About Intellectual Property IP Training Respect for IP IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships AI Tools & Services The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars IP Enforcement WIPO ALERT Raising Awareness World IP Day WIPO Magazine Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Finance Intangible Assets Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA UPOV e-PVP Administration UPOV e-PVP DUS Exchange Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Webcast WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO Translate Speech-to-Text Classification Assistant Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight
Arabic English Spanish French Russian Chinese
Laws Treaties Judgments Browse By Jurisdiction

WIPO Lex

WIPOLEX010-j

Back

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) of Germany [2020]: Case No. X ZR 111/18

This is an informal case summary prepared for the purposes of facilitating exchange during the 2023 WIPO IP Judges Forum.

 

Session 6: Rules of Evidence in Intellectual Property Litigation

 

Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) of Germany [2020]: Case No. X ZR 111/18

 

Date of judgment: May 19, 2020

Issuing authority: German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof)

Level of the issuing authority: Appellate instance

Type of procedure: Judicial (Civin( �/span>

Subject matter: Patents (Inventions)

Plaintiff: S.

Defendant: F.

Keywords: Inventive step, Combination of prior art, Party-appointed expert, Court-appointed expert

 

Basic facts: Citing grounds of inadmissible extension, lack of practicability, and lack of patentability, the plaintiff challenges the validity of a patent for a sensor that detects the rate of rotation and tilt of a sense mass.  The teaching of the patent is composed of features 1 to 5.  The prior art document D4 discloses features 1 to 4 but not feature 5, which concerns the mounting of the tiltable masses on external anchors.  Prior art document D7 discloses a rotation rate sensor having external anchors in accordance with feature 5, but with only one mass for tilting, not the two masses described in features 2 to 2.2 of the patent in suit.

 

The Federal Patent Court—which is staffed with technical judges—did not consider it obvious to combine documents D4 and D7.  A private expert opinion submitted by the plaintiff and appellant considered the teachings of documents D4 and D7 to be easily combinable; a person skilled in the art would have been motivated to design the rotation rate sensor in a more robust manner, and, for this purpose, the construction from D7 would have been particularly interesting.

 

In the appeal proceedings, the plaintiff requested the hearing of a court-appointed expert.

 

Held: The Federal Court of Justice, having the power to review findings of fact as well as law, upheld the decision of the Federal Patent Court and dismissed the action for invalidation of the patent in suit, finding it had not been obvious to combine documents D4 and D7.

 

Relevant holdings in relation to rules of evidence in intellectual property litigation: Like the Federal Patent Court at the first instance, the Federal Court of Justice did not consider it obvious to combine D4 and D7, because an external mounting of the tiltable masses based on D4 would not have been possible without further consideration (para 84).  There was therefore no indication to combine both teachings (para 85).  “In D7, only the replacement of one type of suspension by the other is described as advantageous. This did not give the skilled person any indication that a combination of both measures could also be advantageous.”

 

The Federal Court of Justice does not deviate from the factual findings of the private expert engaged by the plaintiff.  Rather, the question of whether there was an indication from D7 to improve the teaching from D4 is a question of law, not to be decided by an expert (para 87).

                                                                                      

Relevant legislation:

Section 56 of the European Patent Convention (EPC)

Sections 87, 88 and 117 of the Patent Act of Germany

Sections 529 of the German Code of Civil Procedure