Case No. O2019_005 | Decision of 3 May 2021 | ‘Schnittschutzstreifen’
In brief, Sanipat had initially asserted EP 2 405 067 B1 and CH 703 691 (see the complaint below), but EP 067 had been revoked by a Board of Appeal of the EPO while proceedings at the FPC were pending; see T 0717/20 – 3.2.03 below. However, CH 691 was still in the game.
The operative part of the judgment is not a complete surprise anymore after the pleadings and the taking of evidence at the main hearing: Sanipat’s complaint has been dismissed for lack of infringement. The key issue was whether or not ISO-SET® comprises a cut protection strip (‘Schnittschutz-Streifen’). The cutting experiments had established that ISO-SET® could well be cut with relative ease with a knife. Even though the polyamid / aramid backing of ISO-SET® provides for some reinforcement at the ‘right’ place, this effect was not pronounced enough to convice the court: The backing could still be cut through with a cutter knife operated at a pressing force of only 4-8 Newton. Accordingly, this backing could not fulfill the function it should have according to the patent, in the court’s view.
Now, what is the backing good for, then — if not for cut protection?
The judgment holds that this is indeed a tricky question. However, Hafner only claims in its commercial documents that this aramid backing is meant to keep the sealing tight even when the silicone joint is replaced. It is not specifically claimed that the backing is meant to prevent cuts. A pretty thin line of distinction.
The Board of Appeal decision is not «persuasive authority»
The claim at stake inter alia requires an adhesion surface (‘Klebefläche’). Now, does that feature imply that the surface is equipped with an adhesive? Or does that feature read on any surface onto which an adhesive can be applied?
The judgment holds that the latter understanding might well be applicable in a different context, e.g. in case of a handicraft paper. However, in case of an adhesive tape, the skilled person would not refer to the non-sticky side as an ‘adhesion surface’. Very illustrative, isn’t it?
Still, a Board of Appeal decided differently in T 717/20 — and revoked the corresponding European patent based on that different claim construction:
The FPC took note of that decision, but was not convinced of its reasoning. Even though Board of Appeal decisions are persuasive authority in some cases, this is not necessarily the case. In the specific claim construction issue at stake, the judgment holds that T 717/20 was not persuasive (i.e. no authority).
Novelty and non-obviousness
Defendant’s obviousness attacks were based on various alternative pieces of ‘closest’ prior art, i.e. DE 10 2007 043 593 A1, EP 1 038 485 A2, DE 10 2007 010 997 A1, EP 1 891 877 A2, Wetzel 2010 and Wetzel 2006. None of these attacks was successful. I do not believe that the detailed discussion of (non-)obviousness is of broader interest — with two exceptions:
First, the judgment refers to the secondary indicator of a (long-felt) need in support of a finding of non-obviousness, similar to the EPO Guidelines, G VII 10.3. Interestingly, a time of (only) four years is held to be indicative of a (long-felt) need.
Secondly, the FPC defined the objective technical problem more ambitious than the Board of Appeal. Since it had not been pleaded that a certain effect would not occur over the whole scope claimed, the judgment holds that it is to be accepted that the effect (which is a matter of fact) actually occurs.
Claim construction, revisited
Claim construction is one of my favourites, and it is always highly interesting to see how courts deal with it. The most general remarks on claim construction in ¶ 27 (first paragraph) of the judgment refer to O2019_003, ¶ 22 — reciting exactly the same wording (emphasis added):
If the patent specification does not define a term differently, the usual understanding in the relevant technical field is to be assumed.
However, when this concept is being applied to a specific term used in the claim, i.e. adhesive surface (‘Klebefläche’) in ¶ 29 on the very next page, a somewhat different standard is apparently applied:
The usual understanding in the relevant technical field must be taken as a basis, and then it must be examined whether the patent uses the term differently.
Even though the fn again refers to O2019_003 (r. 22), this is not exactly what had been held in that decision: A patent may well use a term differently than usual in the relevant technical field, without actually defining it differently.
So, is it sufficient to just use a term unconventionally in the specification for it to be construed in deviation from the usual understanding? And, if so, which kind of use does it need? Maybe, we will catch a further glimpse on that issue from a judgment in case O2020_001 soon.
No appeal has been filed; the decision is final.
Reported by Martin WILMING
Case No. O2019_005 | Decision of 3 May 2021
Panel of Judges:
- Dr. Mark SCHWEIZER
- Dr. Tobias BREMI
- Dr. Alfred KÖPF
- Dr. Tobias BREMI
- Dr. Lukas ABEGG
Representative(s) of Plaintiff:
- Dr. Andri HESS (Homburger)
- Julian SCHWALLER (Homburger)
- Dr. Bruno MEYER (PRINS), assisting in patent matters
Representative(s) of Defendant:
- Dr. Michael RITSCHER (MLL)
- Michelle AMMANN (MLL)
- Silvan LATSCHA (LS Partner), assisting in patent matters
DECISION IN FULL
COMPLAINT AS FILED
T 717/20 (EPO)
EP 2 405 067 B1
CH 703 691
Partial waiver of 2019:
Partial waiver of 2016:
BE ON THE KNOW