• 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

Patent Law: Protect your idea before selling it as a (software) product

13. December 2016

Discretion is a virtue when it comes to patents. If your idea is already “state of the art”, it is highly possible that your patent-application will be dismissed. In EPO-Case T 2440/12 it was all about the public prior use by software sold before the priority date of a patented computer-implemented method and executing said method. In other words: What happens when you sell your (software) product before the priority date of your patent?

In the decision from September 15, 2015 (Case T 2440/12-3.5.07 “Fluid flow simulation/SIMCON”) the EPO Technical Board of Appeal had to deal with such a (quite complex) case. Before going into detail, one can sum up the case with the sentence “Putting software on the market before filing a patent application is not a good idea” … In the following we show you that a software products sold before the priority date of patented ideas are to be considered as two different forms of disclosure of the same subject-matter.

 

What’s it all about?

In case T 2440/12 the subject was the ruling of the Opposition Division of the European Patent Office posted on 26 September 2012, rejecting the opposition filed against European patent No. 1385103 pursuant to Article 101(2) EPC.

The invention’s title was “Simulation of fluid flow and structural analysis within thin walled three dimensional geometries“.

first-page-clipping-of-ep1385103-a1
First page clipping of EP1385103 (A1) // Source: Patent Drawings

About the invention: It is the main object of the instant invention to describe a new method to use surface models for simulation of fluid within thin-walled three-dimensional geometries avoiding the generation of a midplane or using a standard volumetric mesh.

According to the invention, this main object is reached in that for getting a numerical information of the local part thickness a first defined thickness is achieved by measuring the length of a vector starting from the centre of gravity of each polygon normal to the element plane in the direction to the inside of the part until the vector leaves this part, that the surface mesh is filled with a framework of rod elements extending from node to node of the polygons through the part’s inside within reasonable low distance from the normal direction and that the injection point(s) is/are integrated into the mesh at any place on the polygons or the nodes of the Finite Elements mesh.

 

Findings of the Technical Board of Appeal and Judgement

The prior use was in the form of sales of a software product that embodied the claimed invention. This was undisputed between the parties.

In the Board’s view, it can be rather convincingly argued that the mere fact that any interested (and skilled) person who acquired the software product would be able to see how the input data was processed and understand how the method implemented by the software was carried out. If the machine code of the software can be translated into human-readable language, the two representations of the method should, in principle, be considered as two different forms of disclosure of the same method which are equally available to the public.

html_source_code_software_patent

Most important: The fact that persons that bought the software could automatically execute the method steps as defined in claim 1 of the patent, is as such already sufficient for destroying the novelty of the claimed subject-matter.

Also: In the Board’s opinion, defining a known process or method in different terms does not create a new a whole new process, just like giving a different definition of a chemical composition does not create a new chemical composition.

 

In summary, the Board comes to the conclusion that the ground of opposition of lack of novelty according to Article 100(a) in combination with Articles 52(1) and 54 EPC prejudices the maintenance of the patent. Hence the patent has to be revoked.

You can read the complete (and complex) decision here.

 

Protect your invention BEFORE commercializing it – count on us

Do you wish to protect your patent as soon as possible? Talk to us so that we can go through your documents and produce the right strategy for you and your invention.

First time call will be without any obligations and confidential!

CAT-call_en

Source: EPO.org / Datasheet of the Decision

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law

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

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney 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.