• 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
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • 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 
  • tweet  
  • 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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor? 2. March 2021
  • Suspension of infringement proceedings 1. March 2021
  • Action against a patent already expired 26. February 2021
  • Design protection in China: Amendment 2021 25. February 2021

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:

2. March 2021
BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor?

BGH “FRAND II” – SEP Licensing as Distributor?

26. February 2021
Action against a patent already expired

Action against a patent already expired

18. February 2021
EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform

EPO practice of national patent offices – more uniform

15. February 2021
Employee’s invention in insolvency

Employee’s invention in insolvency

12. February 2021
Equivalence ruling of BGH: ‘Equivalent means’ in case Crane arm

Equivalence ruling of BGH: ‘Equivalent means’ in case Crane arm

5. February 2021
Trade secret: what are ‘appropriate’ secrecy measures?

Trade secret: what are ‘appropriate’ secrecy measures?

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form