Tag: German Federal Patent Court

Posted on

Claim construction in DE nullity proceedings

A recent decision of the German Federal Patent Court, 2 Ni 30/21 (EP), which relates to one of Signify’s LED technology patents, is illustrative for claim construction in DE nullity proceedings. Patentee wanted a claim feature (“clipped into”) to be understood broadly (which is unusual in nullity proceedings). The German Federal Patent Court interpreted the feature in question much more narrowly. The German Federal Patent Court held that the patent was to be maintained on the basis of a (significantly limited) independent claim of an auxiliary request.

It was due to the very narrow interpretation of the “clipped into” feature that the German Federal Patent Court held that this feature was not disclosed by some of the prior art document (see, e.g., sections II.7.5, 7.6, 7.7, and 7.8 of the reasons of the decision 2 Ni 30/21 (EP)).

This case illustrates that the German Federal Patent Court may give claims a much narrower meaning than the interpretation suggested by patentee. Signify’s LED technology patents continue to provide interesting case law (with German Federal Supreme Court decision of December 20, 2018 – X ZR 56/17 – Schaltungsanordnung III being a well-known example).

Posted on

Enabling disclosure for AI inventions

In decision BPatG 19 W (pat) 32/20, the German Federal Patent Court affirmed a decision refusing a German patent application for lack of enabling disclosure. According to the reasons of the decision (in particular section II.5.2(3)(iii)), the Senate considered the structure of the AI model to be insufficiently disclosed. The Senate also considered the information on the training data to be insufficient, in particular when it comes to how the training data are used to train the ANN structure to provide the desired output quantity (relating to wear of a technical system).

By way of background, it is rare that an application or patent is considered insufficiently disclosed by the German Patent and Trademark Office or by the German Federal Patent Court. This applies in particular in the arts that are considered “predictable arts” (physics, mechanics, etc.). The decision reflects a strict practice with regard to AI-based inventions, as also evidenced by the EPO Boards of Appeal.

There appears to be a tendency in the office practice (in particular in the EPO Boards of Appeal) to affirm refusals of applications or revocations of patents for AI-based inventions, based on lack of inventive step, when the invention relates to using AI in a novel, specific field of use. The office’s rationale is often that using AI is a general trend and the skilled person would consider the use of AI in a novel field without exercise of inventive skill. Little consideration appears to be given on the burden imposed on the skilled person for training an AI model to make it amenable for the novel use. There appears to be a discrepancy between (a) such a lack of inventive step rationale and (b) the strict criteria imposed by the office practice and the EPO Boards of Appeal / the German Federal Patent Court (see cited decision) on the disclosure of an application/patent. One can only hope that the EPO, GPTO, and BPatG will find a more balanced view in the future.