DSS' patent out of the money in Germany, too

Regular IPKat readers will already be familiar with Document Security Systems (DSS), which has been attempting to enforce their European patent (EP 455 750) relating to anti-forgery measures, and in particular against the European Central Bank, who DSS would argue are either already using or at least will want to use their patented technology in banknotes. The ECB has responded by attempting to have the patent revoked in each state in which it is in force. It has, so far, succeeded in the UK (noted here), in France (noted here) and in Austria (not noted), but failed in the first instance in the Netherlands (noted here) and Germany (noted here).

The ECB can claim another (and final) victory in Germany now, the BGH having overturned the decision of the Bundespatentgericht. In its judgment of 8 July 2010, the BGH comes essentially to the same conclusion as the English and Dutch courts, i.e. that the patent as granted contains added matter over the application as originally filed (the grounds for the decision are not yet available; press release here). The judgment is interesting insofar as the BGH has lately mostly overruled decisions of the Bundespatentgericht invalidating patents. Yes, adds Merpel, but mostly if the invalidity was based on lack of inventiveness; this challenge succeeded on other grounds.

As another Kat has noted earlier, these types of disputes involving the same facts in several jurisdictions, with courts coming to opposite conclusions, really are an argument in favour of centralised patent litigation. And, if I may add, sorry, Germans, but taking three years for an appeal (the Bundespatentgericht judgment dates of 27 March 2007) is too long.
DSS' patent out of the money in Germany, too DSS' patent out of the money in Germany, too Reviewed by Mark Schweizer on Tuesday, July 13, 2010 Rating: 5

No comments:

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.