G 1/26 | T 873/24 - Coated Steel Strips / "Titan zu Stickstoff Verhältnis" (Vorlageverfahren)

In dieser Folge sprechen Gerd Hübscher und Michael Stadler über
Entscheidung T 873/24 und die Vorlagefragen der daraus
hervorgegangenen Vorlage G 1/26 an die Große Beschwerdekammer.
Ausgangspunkt ist ein Patent zu beschichteten Stahlbändern für das
Warmumformen in der Automobilindustrie. Im Zentrum steht jedoch
keine werkstofftechnische Detailfrage, sondern ein dogmatischer
Kernpunkt des europäischen Patentrechts: Wie sind Patentansprüche
auszulegen, und welche Rolle spielt dabei die Beschreibung – gerade
bei der Prüfung der Zulässigkeit von Änderungen nach Art. 123(2)
EPÜ? Der Fall verbindet damit Neuheit, erfinderische Tätigkeit,
Zwischenverallgemeinerung, Schutzbereichsfragen und die offene
Grundsatzfrage, wie weit die Linie aus G 1/24 tatsächlich reicht.
VORLAGEFRAGEN: 1. May a decision be considered to be "required" for
the purposes of Article 112(1) EPC, if the referring Board
demonstrates that the point of law in question arises out of the
context of the case pending before it and, in the circumstances of
the proceedings, it is reasonable for the Board to examine it and
decide on it next? 2. (a) Does the fact that the claims are the
starting point and the basis for assessing the patentability of an
invention generally preclude a feature which is only disclosed in
the description or the drawings of a patent from being read into
the meaning of a granted claim, in particular if this leads to a
restrictive reading of terms used in the claim? 2. (b) If the
answer to question 2.(a) is no: is claim interpretation the result
of both reading the claims and consulting the description and
drawings as a unitary process and does the claim being the starting
point and the basis for assessing the patentability rule out only
those interpretations which can be derived from the patent as a
whole but would clearly contradict the general technical
understanding of the terms used in the claim? 3. (a) When assessing
compliance with Article 123(2) EPC, must a term used in a claim be
assessed against all interpretations that make technical sense to
the skilled reader on the basis of the claim alone? 3. (b) If the
answer to question 3.(a) is no: is it sufficient that only the
interpretations of the subject-matter of the claim established
against the background of the patent specification as a whole are
directly and unambiguously derivable from the application as filed?