• 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

Solar patent declared invalid for GER

20. April 2021

The Federal Patent Court has declared a European patent on solar systems to be invalid in Germany. The solar patent had been protected in Germany for 15 years and made claims relating to DC power sources and DC/AC converters. Now it was found to be without inventive step.

Solaranlagen

Renewable energy, solar and wind energy and solar plants are not a new phenomenon, but have been steadily expanded since the former government under Gerhard Schröder. The solar patent in this action has been in force in Germany for almost as long.

The background to the patent in suit is solar installations. Although the independent patent claims generally speak of direct current power sources, they are about photovoltaic systems. A single photovoltaic cell has an output voltage of 0.5 to 4 volts, and only by connecting many such cells in series can systems with the necessary system voltage be created.

This is the context of the patent in suit. The patent in suit, filed as European patent 2 135 348 by Solaredge Technologies Ltd, Hod Hasharon (Israel), is entitled “Distributed Power Harvesting Systems Using DC Power Sources” (in German, according to the patent specification in suit: “Verteilte Leistungswandler-Systeme mit Gleichstrom-Leistungsquellen”) and, as granted, comprises nine patent claims, which the applicant challenged in their entirety with an action for revocation in November 2018.

According to the patent in this action, each individual DC voltage source is associated with a separate DC/DC converter, with the outputs of the DC/DC converters being connected in series so that the resulting system voltage is the sum of the output voltages of the DC/DC converters. An inverter is then finally used to feed into an AC grid.

Point of action: inadmissible extension of the patent to solar systems

The plaintiff had challenged the patent in suit on solar systems on several points. The applicant first claimed an inadmissible extension of the patent, namely with regard to claims 1 and 8. However, the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) rejected this.

It was true, the court conceded, that the aspects claimed by the applicant as inadmissible extensions were not originally contained in the patent claim, but they were contained in the patent description, albeit in a more general form.

And since the original patent claims had no restrictive effect, the patent proprietor could later refer back to the description and include the variant merely mentioned there in the patent claims, the BPatG explained the established legal practice.

Generalisation no problem – with superfluous information

The court’s addition is interesting: the omission of the condition that the output voltage must be almost equal to the input voltage does not, moreover, constitute an inadmissible intermediate generalisation, since both circuit parts can only operate simultaneously under this condition, the BPatG ruled.

This is because, according to the German court, this deletion is harmless, even if the independent patent claims thereby comprise variants that are not technically useful. On the contrary, it would be an unnecessary overloading of the patent claims if superfluous details were mentioned therein, which the skilled person tacitly assumes, the BPatG explained.

Point of action: Patent version was not disclosed

The applicant was also unsuccessful with the objection that the applicable version of the patent was not disclosed. According to the court, the omission of the solar power installation as well as the control part did not constitute an inadmissible intermediate generalisation, since the skilled person would recognise that it did not matter which DC power source was present. Rather, the skilled person reads a control in connection with a DC power converter anyway, so that it is not necessary to mention it, the BPatG ruled.

Invalidity ground = lack of patentability

However, the applicant was successful in the final plea: the court found lack of patentability in the patent and declared it completely invalid in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The lack of patentability resulted from the opposition of only one printed publication NK1, namely the work “Walker, G. R.; Sernia, P. C.: “Cascaded DC-DC Converter Connection of Photovoltaic Modules”.

The BPatG explained its decision by stating that in feature 1.5 of the patent specification it can be inferred from publication NK1 in the context of an example that a regulated 360 V bus is envisaged. It was left open how the voltage on the DC bus, which is also the input voltage of the DC/AC converter, is regulated; the skilled person thus selects this from two alternatives. Such a choice, however, was not to be regarded as an inventive step at all, the court ruled. Moreover, they are not real alternatives at all, since only one way (controlling the input current of the DC/AC converter with the help of its power semiconductors) is the much simpler one.

The same also applied to the auxiliary process claim 8 as granted, as it was no more specific in content than patent claim 1, the court added.

The patent could not be upheld in the auxiliary versions either; the court also found the auxiliary versions to be already anticipated in the NK1 publication or, in any case, related to patent claim 1, which was not upheld.

Therefore, the European patent was not based on an inventive step and was declared invalid for the territory of Germany (according to Art. II § 6 (1) No. 1 IntPatÜG in conjunction with Art. 138 (1) (a), Art. 52, 56 EPC).

Are you looking for support in patent proceedings or for a lawsuit?

Our attorneys and patent attorneys have many years of expertise in patent law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are authorised to represent you before any court – in Germany and also internationally.
Please feel free to contact us if you are interested.

 

Sources: 

Judgement of BPatG from 15 april 2021, 6 Ni 47/18 (EP)

Image:

torstensimon | pixabay | CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconlack of inventive step,  non-inventive,  solar systems,  photovoltaics,  BPatG,  patent solar systems,  judgement,  direct current,  DC/AC converter,  Lack of patentability,  solar energy,  solar system,  European Patent,  action for invalidity,  action

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]