A solution differing from the literal sense of the patent claim is only equivalent if it not only essentially achieves the overall effect of the invention but also achieves precisely that effect that is meant to be achieved by the feature not implemented literally. If the construction of the patent claim discloses minimum requirements of a specific effect in terms of quantity or quality, modified means that do not satisfy these requirements cannot be regarded as equivalent in the sense of a less advantageous solution even if all the other effects of the patented solution are essentially achieved.
Notes
Published in 44 IIC 351 2013, DOI 10.1007/s40319-013-0044-3.
Author information
Consortia
Additional information
Official headnotes.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Decision of the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) 17 July 2012 – Case No. X ZR 113/11. “Pallet Container III” (Palettenbehälter III). IIC 44, 457–463 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0053-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40319-013-0053-2