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

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

BGH case law: patentability of GUI

1. November 2021

The patentability of GUI (graphical user interfaces) is relevant for digitalisation, navigation and the Internet of Things. There is clear case law from the Federal Court of Justice in this area, which can be summarised briefly: if only the user is addressed by the GUI, this does not count for patentability.

For the examination of an invention for inventive step, in principle only those features or instructions are to be considered which contribute to the deletion of a technical problem by technical means. This also applies to inventions and patents on graphical user interfaces (GUI).

Patentability of GUI

GUI - graphische Benutzeroberflächen

However, since GUIs usually serve the purpose of user friendliness and therefore primarily solve the problem of a vivid presentation of menu items, the case law on the patentability of GUIs is particularly interesting. Especially in recent years, several important patent cases have been decided before the Federal Supreme Court (BGH).

A clear case law is emerging:  The presentation of information as such is not amenable to patent protection and, according to the BGH, neither is content that affects human imagination or reasoning ability.
However, if the presentation of GUI makes the information possible or improves it for the user in the first place, this must be taken into account in the examination for inventive step. In principle, according to BGH case law, such instructions “must be taken into account to the extent that they influence the solution of a technical problem in any case”.

How does this look in judicial practice? We summarise the recent BGH decisions on the patentability of GUI.

Case Study: BGH ‘Rotating Menu’

In patent invalidity proceedings concerning the European patent 888 687 (patent in suit) of Philips N.V. (Netherlands) – which has since lapsed due to the passage of time – the subject matter was an invention according to which a selection on the screen was to be used to select a display mode via a rotating menu.
The Federal Patent Court had declared the patent invalid, and this was confirmed by the BGH in 2020 (X ZR 144/17). On the one hand, an earlier disclosure (European patent application 626 635) had been close to the Philips patent, and on the other hand, it was criticised that the patent claim did not contain specifications regarding either the course or the shape of the intended rotation path. Above all, however, the BGH once again made clear the patentability of graphical user interfaces.

Displaying menu items in a particularly descriptive manner does not concern a technical solvent, the BGH ruled as a guiding principle. The feature relating to the intended presentation of the menu as rotating is limited to the mere reproduction of an item of information as such, the BGH explained, albeit in a particularly vivid presentation. This appeals to the human imagination, but is not patentable.

The BGH added that the situation was different for the features relating to the practical utilisation of the available screen area, which was a technical improvement and to be regarded as an inventive step.

Case study: BGH ‘Bildstrom’

As early as 2015, the BGH had determined as legal principle in the judgement ‘Bildstrom’ (i.e.: floating images) that instructions are to be taken into account in the examination for inventive step if the presentation of GUI only enables or improves the information for the user – and if they take into account the physical circumstances of human perception and reception of information (XZR37/13).

The BGH explicitly wanted to see this decision as a further development of the case law on GUI, which came from the field of automobile navigation. In this respect, two decisions, ‘Wiedergabe topografischer Informationen’ (X ZR 47/07) of 2010 and ‘Fahrzeugnavigationssystem’ (X ZR 27/12) of 2013, are particularly relevant. According to these decisions, the selection of a display of position-related topographical information that is expedient for the navigation of a vehicle is deemed to be a non-technical specification – and thus to be outside the scope of inventive step. The instruction to voice a navigation instruction under certain conditions is also considered non-technical.

Case study: BGH ‘Entsperrbild’

Also relevant for the case law on the patentability of GUI is the 2015 BGH decision ‘Entsperrbild’ (unlock image) concerning Apple’s touch screen when unlocking by executing (finger) movements. The BGH explained that the information-related features of a patent claim had to be examined to determine whether the information to be reproduced was at the same time an embodiment of a technical solvent – not already otherwise indicated as such in the patent claim.

Specifically, the invalidity proceedings were concerned with the fact that the citation of the earlier disclosures did not provide for an “unlock image” that was moved along in the sense of a graphical interactive user interface object – yet that was precisely what made Apple’s invention. But this feature was not considered for inventive step. This was because the device itself and its technical function were not influenced, the BGH ruled, rather only information was graphically displayed that was directly directed at the user.

Any need for help on protective law for GUI?

Our law and patent attorney firm Meyer-Dulheuer has many years of expertise in patent law and design law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and is authorised to represent you before any court – in Germany and also internationally – including in China. Please do not hesitate to contact us if you are interested.


 

Sources: 

BGH “Rotierendes Menü”, X ZR 144/17

BGH “Entsperrbild”, XZR37/13

BGH “Bildstrom”, X ZR37/13

Image:

200degrees | pixabay | CCO License

 

  • share  9 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag icondigital,  BGH GUI case law,  case law in Germany,  unlock image,  case study BGH,  case law,  image stream,  technical solvent,  BGH case law,  patent protection GUI,  Patent Claim,  telecommunication,  patent law GUI,  digitisation,  user interfaces,  Internet of Things,  GUI (graphical user interfaces),  screen,  mobile,  patentability GUI,  rotating menu,  display,  GUI patentable,  BGH GUI,  Iot,  features for GUI,  Autmobil,  inventive step,  BGH GUI decision,  Navigation

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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