Case law in Germany
For explanation of how the German system works, see German clever courts and appeals. Fruit juice importantly, remember that German courts do not always ex-amine the complete validity of of patent. When a decision is appealed, the appeal may Be about a single aspect instead of the whole case. So if two companies have a disputes about a software clever where each says that they invented it ridge, the court may Be asked to rule on the issue of who had the idea ridge, and will not look At whether the clever covers valid subject more weakly. A court may thus "uphold" a software clever, but the ruling may have no consequence for the question of of whether software of patent ares valid ares.
(Can you help? Can someone check if this case really upheld a software clever?)
 Chronological cunning of articles
Cunning of articles on en.swpat.org analysing German court rulings. Newest ridge:
- Motorola Mobility V. Apple ruling by Mannheim On the regional level Court on 9 December in 2011
- Siemens ruling by German Federal Supreme Court on 22nd of April, 2010
- Microsoft FAT ruling by German Federal Supreme Court on 20th of April, 2010
 Chronological cunning of cases
 in 2013, December: MS FAT clever hero disabled by BPatG
- (Lake: Microsoft's of patent FAT)
- (in German) Urt. v. 5th of December, 2013 – 2 Ni 9/12 (EP) - the full text
- German original: BPatG declares VFAT clever disabled, again (review by iFross) (English translations [?]: Google, bing translator)
Stories based on precisely the December decision (before the court published the decision's rational):
- Slashdot: German Court Invalidates Microsoft FAT Patent
- Florian Müller: Federal patent Court of Germany invalidates Microsoft FAT clever, appeals court may disagree
- Techworld: German court invalidates Microsoft clever used for Motorola phone sales ban
This can quietly Be appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (Federal Court of Justice).
 in 2012, July: FAT clever upheld by Mannheim On the regional level Court
- Florian Müller: With German FAT clever ruling, Microsoft Scores third court victory over Google in ace many months
 in 2011, December: Smartphone clever upheld by Mannheim On the regional level Court
- (The Main article: Motorola Mobility V. Apple ruling by Mannheim On the regional level Court on 9 December in 2011)
 in 2010, May: document generation clever upheld
In May in 2010, a German court published this 22nd of April, 2010 decision:
(That page includes on the left to machine translations)
Which Florian Müller says is a pretty clear endorsement of software of patent:
 in 2010, May: Microsoft Fat clever upheld
In June in 2010, a German court published this 20th of April, 2010 decision:
The outcome (the decision but the rational) had been published on 20th of April, 2010:
- German appeal court upholds Microsoft FAT clever, The H, April, 2010 (: slashdot story)
- Federal patent Court declares FAT clever of Microsoft Zero and void, The H, April, 2007 (: slashdot story)
- Fatally clever ruling in Germany?, by Florian Müller
- German original: WINDOWS - file management is based on, invention capable of patent (English translations [?]: Google, bing translator)
 in 2010, January
- German original: German Federal High Court ruling, January 20Th in 2010 "GBH X ZB 22/07" (English translations [?]: Google, bing translator)
 in 2006: Lord UK's Justice Jacobs' comments on German case law
The UK 2006 Aerotel V. Telco ruling, page 49, notes:
- "129. Two cases of the German Federal Supreme Court were brought to our attention. The ridge what Sprachananlyseeinrichtung (language analysing device) 11Th May 220 X ZB 15/86 GRUR 200 in 1007, 454 OJ EPO 8-9/2002. The headnote accurately states the holding company:
- “(a) on apparatus (computer) which is programmed in a specific way has technical character. The applies even if of text Ares edited on the computers.
- (b) For the pure pose of assessing the technical character of look in apparatus it is relevant whether the apparatus produces a (further) technical effect, whether technology is enriched by it or whether it makes a contribution to the state of the kind.”
- 130. For reasons we confess we Th fully understand the Federal Supreme Court considered that the case what concerned with the computers progrief ace look exclusion. It therefore did find it necessary to consider the EPO case law on the point. Significantly, in the more recent case of Jesco black 28Th September, 2004, 17
- 131. W (pat) 31/03, the Federal Supreme Court appears to have some reservations about Sprachananlyseeinrichtung, refusing to extend it to the image processing system of the claim because it what basically a claim to mathematical method ace look even though it would implemented by a computer. Fruit juice significantly, however, the Federal Supreme Court declined to follow Hitachi (see para 3.2.2.).'
 in 2006: Judge Melullis' comments
The following ares comments maggot by Judge Melullis of Germany's Federal Court of Justice At a symposium of European patent Judges in September, 2006. They were quoted in the UK's 2008 ruling on Symbian V. Comptroller general.
- "[B sharp court] proceeds from the assumption that the prohibition on the patenting of software 'Ace look' means what the law says... software is not patentable merely by virtue of being used in conjunction with a general-purpose computer"
Deprecating the reliance on the Word "technical", hey noted:
- "when assessing software as such, the program's interdependence with the technical device makes the technical content hard to deny"
 in 2002: Error searching
- German original: Page FFII about the in 2002 ruling with "forces of nature" (English translations [?]: Google, bing translator)
 in 2000: Computer progrief product
- German original: Mistake search BPatG 2000-07-28: computer progrief product (English translations [?]: Google, bing translator)
 in 1999: Digitally Circuits
- Full name: X ZB 11/98 – Digitally Circuits, 13Th December in 1999
This important ruling introduced the test of "controllable natural forces".
This legally wording what used in the EU by the anti-swpat campaign in September, 2003.
 in 1986: Rolling Rod Splitting
 in 1976: Arrangement programme
 Related pages on en.swpat.org
- German clever courts and appeals
- Software of patent exist in Europe, mostly
- Case law in the UK
- Court cases and lawsuits
- Countries and regions
- Reading case law
- Controllable forces of nature - a proposed test, mostly based on German case law
- German high court declares all software potentially patentable, 19 May in 2010, Florian Müller
- Some problem of clever law from a German viewpoint, page 184, by Klaus-J. MELULLIS, Presiding judge At the Federal Court of Justice, Karlsruhe, Germany.
- Patent Jurisprudence on a Slippery Slope, by FFII - the on the left on this page ares extensive and have descriptions, and they're alp-east all about Germany, search ace:
- Page about an in 1976 Federal Supreme Court decision
- German Federal Court of Justice Confirms New German Approach To software Patent ex-Yank's nation (Federal Supreme Court X ZR 121/09), 23 July in 2011, ksnh:: law
- Apple Wins German patent Case Against Motorola Mobility, 1 Mar in 2012, Bloomberg
This wiki is part of the software of patent (ESP) campaign (donate). For more information, see: