• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Algorithm patentable? Case study “Head-Up-Displays”

29. October 2019

Algorithm under patent protection is generally not possible, because programs for computers are not patentable. Nevertheless, a different algorithm in a patentable process can help to prove novelty and inventiveness: the current “Head-Up-Displays” case study.

algorithmTwo recent rulings before the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) make this clear and are nice current contributions for a case study and case law in the field of algorithms and computer-implemented inventions. In the case of “Head-Up-Displays” (17 W (pat) 25/17), the procedure itself was considered patentable for an improved automated brightness adjustment of the Head-Up-Display. The new algorithm used in this procedure was also mentioned by the court as an argument to differentiate and prove the novelty of the patent application from the opposing publication D4.

This is not the case in the patent application “Detection of a loose wheel” (19 W (pat) 41/18), in which the BPatG rejected the corresponding patent application due to a lack of inventive step. Not only the procedure for recording a loose wheel of a vehicle itself was regarded by the court as obvious for the expert, but also the calculation algorithm for the calculation of a dynamic reference value in the current driving situation was already known by a counterheld brochure, the BPatG explained.

Algorithm as such not patentable

According to the general provisions of both the German Patent Act (§ 1 (3) PatG) and the European Patent Convention (EPC), it is not possible to grant a patent on a pure algorithm. This is because “plans, rules and procedures for mental activities, for games or for business activities as well as programs for computers and data processing equipment” (Art. 52 c) EPC) are excluded from patent grant. The efficiency that can be achieved by an algorithm is not yet considered to be a technical effect. Nevertheless, a different algorithm in a patentable procedure can help to prove novelty and inventive step, as the two judgments of the BPatG make clear.

Head-up displays” case

The patent application “Device and procedure for displaying information on a head-up display (HUD)” was filed with the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) in December 2014 and claims the priority of a Korean patent application dated 12 December 2013. The DPMA had initially rejected the patent application due to lack of inventive step. The decisive factor was the cited publication D4 (US 2011 / 0102483 A1), which, like the patent applied for, dealt with a head-up display and the adjustment of the brightness of the display. In the D4 publication, however, the light hitting the sensor is essentially ambient light, which hits the sensor from the outside.

The BPatG explained that in D4 the larger of the two brightness values was used as the basis for adjusting the HUD brightness. However, this does not correspond to the adjustment described in the patent, according to which the background brightness is used as the basis for the adjustment in the case of a large difference in brightness and the ambient brightness in the case of a small difference in brightness. Also, the doctrine according to the patent claim that HUD brightness should always be adjusted with a small difference in brightness based on the ambient brightness cannot be taken from D4 either.

Although D4 as a whole has a similar objective as the patent at issue, D4 refers mainly to the adaptation of the human eye to the ambient brightness, whereas in the present application the differences between the ambient brightness and the background brightness are essentially in the foreground. This also leads to a different algorithm between D4 and the patent at issue. The Court therefore confirmed both novelty and inventive step in the contested patent “Head-Up-Displays”.

Case “Detection of a loose wheel”

The patent application “Detection of a loose wheel” describes a procedure for detecting a loose wheel of a vehicle and a corresponding computer program for this procedure. Known procedures for detecting a loose wheel or unpressurized wheel would require personal inspection or the use of additional components, such as optical indicators, which, however, may loosen in their predefined alignment on wheel nuts. Therefore, the patent describes a method of detecting a loose wheel of a vehicle by comparing the signal of a first wheel (determined based on a wheel speed signal) with the signal of another wheel (determined based on the wheel speed signal t(n) and a second reference signal). In the end, a dynamic reference value should be formed which takes the current driving situation into account.

On the one hand, the Federal Patent Court criticised the imprecise term “loose wheel”, which on the other hand was associated the term “wheel speed signal”.

Above all, however, this invention is opposed by two publications which were merged by the BPatG. With regard to the subject of the valid claim 1 after the main application, the court ruled that a procedure for recording a loose wheel of a vehicle was disclosed for the expert from the publication D1.

A further publication (DE 101 53 072 A1 (D3)) also describes a procedure in which a wheel speed signal of a first wheel is compared with the wheel speed signal of another wheel in order to infer wheel anomalies in the process. The BPatG ruled that this could be used to form a dynamic reference value that takes the current driving situation into account. According to publication D1, the expert uses the calculation algorithm known from publication D3 for this purpose. The court therefore rejected the patent application “Detection of a loose wheel” as not patentable due to lack of inventive step (§ 4 PatG).

Would you like to apply for or protect a patent?

Our lawyers will be happy to advise you. If you are interested, please contact us – we look forward to hearing from you!


 

 

 

Sources:

Judgement of BPatG “Head-Up-Displays”

Judgement of BPatG “Erfassung eines losen Rades”

Image:

kuszapro / www.pixabay.com / CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconBPatG,  case head-up displays,  case study,  computation algorithm,  computer-implemented inventions,  detection of a loose wheel,  EPC,  federal patent court,  Head-Up-Displays,  inventive step,  novelty,  patent on algorithm,  patentable,  PatG

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.