Disparaging patent specifications, or your fish can stinks

Patent specifications often contain a part that explains the perceived disadvantages of the state of the art. In the case of the German patent DE 43 32 545 for a tear-off lid of sheet metal for a can, filed in 1993, the specifications explain various alleged disadvantages of the invention according to EP 236 736.

The plaintiff produces fish cans according to EP 236 736 and took exception to the description of the technology in the German patent. He sued, and I am not pulling your leg, the patentee based on an unfair competition and general tort (Deliktsrecht) claim, demanding deletion of four allegedly incorrect and disparaging ("herabsetzend") statements from the (granted and published) German patent.

Both lower courts, after obtaining an expert opinion, concluded that the characterization of the disadvantages of the state of the art was indeed wrong, held for the plaintiff and demanded deletion of the incorrect statements about the prior art.

The German Federal Court (BGH) reversed (I ZR 46/07, 10 December 2009): The German Patent Act exclusively regulated under which circumstances a third party had a right that a patent application or a granted patent be amended or revoked. This excluded any claim on another legal basis, such as unfair competition or general tort law. The BGH saw one possible exception when the disparaging remarks in a patent (application) were wholly unrelated to the invention, but this was not the case here (hmmm, one can think of funny examples here... but none of them very realistic). Since patent law did not foresee a claim for amendment of an incorrect description of the (perceived disadvantages of) the state of the art, the claim had to fail. Which, the IPKat assumes, comes as a relief to German patent attorneys because it is one less thing to worry about - writing a patent application that withstands all attacks being hard enough as it is.
Disparaging patent specifications, or your fish can stinks Disparaging patent specifications, or your fish can stinks Reviewed by Mark Schweizer on Tuesday, March 23, 2010 Rating: 5

1 comment:

  1. During examination in EP:
    Rule 48(1)(b) EPC & Guidelines C-II-7.3 as well as (possibly) C-II-4.3 [Factuality].
    Not one of the grounds for Opposition under Art. 100 EPC.


All comments must be moderated by a member of the IPKat team before they appear on the blog. Comments will not be allowed if the contravene the IPKat policy that readers' comments should not be obscene or defamatory; they should not consist of ad hominem attacks on members of the blog team or other comment-posters and they should make a constructive contribution to the discussion of the post on which they purport to comment.

It is also the IPKat policy that comments should not be made completely anonymously, and users should use a consistent name or pseudonym (which should not itself be defamatory or obscene, or that of another real person), either in the "identity" field, or at the beginning of the comment. Current practice is to, however, allow a limited number of comments that contravene this policy, provided that the comment has a high degree of relevance and the comment chain does not become too difficult to follow.

Learn more here: http://ipkitten.blogspot.com/p/want-to-complain.html

Powered by Blogger.