Introduction
In decision T 1690/22, the Board of Appeal reviewed the inventive step in a patent related to high-performance packaging methods for small items, particularly confectionery products. The key legal issues were whether the combination of prior art references, specifically D1 and D3, would lead a skilled person to the claimed invention in an obvious manner. The appeal, filed by Sapal SA against Theegarten-Pactec GmbH & Co. KG, raised crucial questions on the admissibility of auxiliary requests and the combination of technical teachings across different industries.
Summary of the Invention
The patent, EP 3293124, involves a high-performance packaging system designed to package small products, especially confectionery, such as hard and soft candies or chocolates. The system consists of a dual-track feeding system that delivers products in parallel to a packaging unit. The key innovation lies in the system’s ability to process multiple product streams in parallel, significantly increasing packaging efficiency.
Summary of the Decision
Arguments of the Opponent and Patentee:
- The Opponent (Sapal SA) argued that the patent lacked inventive step over the prior art. Specifically, the opponent cited D1, which disclosed a packaging machine for cigarettes using a two-track system, and D3, which described a packaging machine for small items like chocolates.
- The Patentee (Theegarten-Pactec) contended that the skilled person would not combine the teachings of D1 and D3 because the two documents addressed different industries (cigarette packaging vs. confectionery packaging). They further argued that the handling of small confectionery items requires different mechanical solutions than the packaging of pre-packaged cigarette groups.
Decision of the Board
- The Board rejected the patentee’s argument, noting that the packaging method described in D3 was not limited to chocolates, despite the patentee's assertions. The Board emphasized that the skilled person, when seeking to improve packaging efficiency, would indeed consider the two-track system of D1, even if it originated from the cigarette packaging field.
- The Board found that the combination of D1 and D3 was both technically feasible and obvious to a skilled person. The dual-track feature from D1 could be readily applied to the packaging of small items described in D3, thus solving the technical problem of increasing packaging efficiency.
- As a result, the Board concluded that the claimed subject matter of the patent lacked inventive step under Article 56 EPC and decided to revoke the patent.
Lessons to Be Learned
The key takeaway from T 1690/22 is the importance of considering prior art across different technical fields. The decision emphasizes that the skilled person is expected to combine teachings from different industries if they address similar technical problems, particularly when the goal is to enhance efficiency. The case also illustrates the necessity for patentees to carefully distinguish their inventions from analogous technologies, especially when arguing inventive step.
- Article 56 EPC was the central legal provision in this case, underscoring the need to demonstrate a non-obvious inventive step when combining prior art.
- Additionally, the case highlights the significance of clear auxiliary requests during appeal proceedings, as the patentee’s auxiliary requests were not admitted due to insufficient substantiation.
Contact
If you have any questions concerning intellectual property issuesor need assistance with patent applications, oppositions, or appeals, please do not hesitate to contact us at Novitech IP. Our team of experienced professionals is here to provide you with expert guidance and support. Reach out to us today to discuss how we can help protect your innovations and navigate the complexities of IP law.
To stay informed about the latest reviewsand updates in IP law, subscribe to our blog. Join our community and receive notifications whenever we publish new reviews and insights on important case law and developments in the field of intellectual property.
Legal Disclaimer
The information provided in this blog post is for generalinformational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. The summary and analysis of the EPO case are based on publicly available information and are intended to offer insights into the decision and its implications. This content should not be used as a substitute for professional legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances. For advice related to any specific legal matters, you should consult a qualified attorney.