• 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

BGH: old known functional principle “non-obvious”

5. October 2021

A long known, old functional principle can be “non-obvious” and therefore inventive in the sense of patentability, the BGH ruled in its leading decision ‘Laufradschnellspanner’ – even if the functional principle is used in devices that have also been known for a long time.

Laufradschnellspanner - altes Funktionsprinzip

The interesting decision of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) on quick-release wheel clamps provides case law for a problem with patent applications that contain a functional principle or component that has been known for a long time. In practice, this happens more or less 100% of the time; to put it colloquially, why reinvent the wheel?

The patent in suit (European patent 1 801 005), in its still defended version, concerns the use of a quick-release for the rapid installation and removal of wheels on bicycles. The plaintiff had challenged this patent on the grounds of lack of patentability (Art. II § 6.1 No. 1 IntPatÜbkG in conjunction with Art. 54 and 56 EPC), but with its action only obtained a limitation of the patent to its still defended version.

With its appeal before the Federal Supreme Court, the plaintiff sought a complete declaration of invalidity of the patent in suit, which had been declared patentable by the Federal Patent Court in its still defended version.

A central point of discussion in this case was the clamping lever – a tool or component that has been known for a very long time and especially for machine tools. Had it therefore been obvious or non-obvious to consider these levers, which are mainly used for machine tools, also for quick-releases?

Long-known, old functional principle – obvious or non-obvious?

The clamping levers, which had been known for a long time and used for tools, had had no influence on the fastening of impellers for decades, argued the defendant patent proprietor, so they were not obvious – quasi-obvious.

The BGH followed this argument. A long known, old functional principle can be “non-obvious” in the sense of patentability and therefore inventive, the BGH ruled in its lead decision Laufradschnellspanner – even if the functional principle is used in devices that have also been known for a long time. The BGH ruled that if a functional principle has been known for many decades in itself, an additional suggestion is usually required in order to use this principle for the first time in devices that have also been known for many decades.

Prior art: Clamping levers can be used in other than machine tools

The court admitted that it was clear from K4 that devices of the clamping lever type could also be used for objects other than machine tools. However, as the BPatG had already found, there was no reason to consider clamping levers also for quick-release levers according to K6.

The abbreviation K6 stands for the German utility model 297 14 945, which is quite close to the patent in suit. But neither disclosed nor suggested was the further development of the patent in suit in the sense of its features 6.1 and 6.2. And features 6.1 and 6.2 were therefore to be regarded as “not disclosed”, the BGH concluded its consideration, because the lever was axially movable and removable, but not movable into a position in which its angular position could be adjusted independently of the state of tension.

Finally, the BGH rejected the claim.

Final comments

The BGH ruling on quick-release wheel clamps is not a carte blanche for patent applications that contain known functional principles or tools without considering the context. However, it opens up the possibility of using known functions even in known processes or devices for new and protectable innovations, if one thinks of the old in a new context and presents it accordingly in the patent description.

We would be pleased to help you with the corresponding drafting of a patent application. Our attorneys have many years of expertise in patent law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property.


 

Sources: 

BGH Judgement ‘Laufradschnellspanner’, X ZR 61/19

Image:

422737 | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconBGH,  BGH wheel quick release,  clamping lever,  EPC Art. 56,  functional principle,  invention obvious,  inventive,  obvious,  obvious to the person skilled in the art,  old functional principle,  Patent Application,  Patent applications,  patent description,  PatG § 4

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.