Purpose
Before filing a patent or utility model application, the skill examines whether the invention meets the substantive requirements for protection and recommends a filing route (DPMA, EPO with the option of a unitary patent, PCT). By identifying weaknesses at an early stage, it is intended to minimize avoidable refusals, oppositions and nullity attacks.
Inputs
- Description of the invention (technical problem, solution, exemplary embodiments)
- known prior art (own search, third-party IP rights)
- own prior publications (conference papers, trade fair appearances, publications, websites) with dates
- desired countries of protection / protection strategy (DE, EU/EPC, selected countries, worldwide)
- existing priority applications (domestic and foreign)
- in the case of an employee invention: status under the ArbnErfG (notification, claim, remuneration)
Sub-agent architecture
The Researcher provides PatG and EPC statutes, Federal Court of Justice (Xth Civil Senate) and EPO Boards of Appeal case law on patentability (in particular CII, problem-and-solution approach) as well as commentary passages from Benkard, Schulte, Singer/Stauder. The Drafter prepares the preliminary examination opinion and a skeleton of the patent application (description, claims, drawings) plus a strategy memo on the filing route. The Reviewer checks whether all four requirements for protection have been properly examined and whether the grace period / priority periods are correctly addressed.
Procedure
1. Define the subject-matter of the invention
Clarification of what the invention is (product, process, use). In the case of software components: is there a technical contribution within the meaning of the EPO Boards of Appeal (T 0641/00 “COMVIK”) or a solution to a concrete technical problem within the meaning of the Federal Court of Justice case law on computer-implemented inventions?
2. Exclusions under § 1 III, IV PatG / Art. 52 II, III EPC
The following subject-matter is as such not patentable:
- discoveries, scientific theories, mathematical methods
- aesthetic creations (→ design)
- schemes, rules, methods for mental activities, games, business activities
- programs for data processing systems
- presentation of information
The “as such” clause is the lever of practice. Computer-implemented inventions are patentable if they solve a concrete technical problem by technical means (Federal Court of Justice, “Rentabilitätsermittlung”, X ZB 34/03; Federal Court of Justice, “Logikverifikation”, X ZB 11/98; EPO, G 0003/08).
Additional exclusions: plant varieties / animal breeds (§ 2a PatG), therapeutic and diagnostic methods practiced on the human / animal body (§ 2a I No. 2 PatG).
3. Novelty § 3 PatG / Art. 54 EPC
State of the art = everything that was accessible to the public before the filing or priority date (worldwide, any language, any medium). Standard: what the person skilled in the art could derive from the prior publication directly and unambiguously (EPO G 0001/92).
Beware of the applicant's own prior publications. Conference papers, trade fair presentations, press releases and publications on the applicant's own website are prejudicial to novelty.
Grace period § 3(5) PatG: 6 months before filing, only in the case of obvious abuse or a recognized exhibition within the meaning of § 3(5) no. 2 PatG. The EPC does not provide for a comparable grace period other than Art. 55 EPC (abusive disclosure, recognized exhibition). Anyone who chooses the EPO route effectively loses the DE grace period.
By contrast, for utility models (§ 3 GebrMG) there is a 6-month grace period for the applicant's own prior publications — which is why a utility model is occasionally a "life raft" after a prior publication.
4. Inventive step § 4 PatG / Art. 56 EPC
Standard: whether it is obvious to the person skilled in the art. The EPO standard and Federal Court of Justice practice use the problem-solution approach (problem-solution approach):
- Closest prior art select
- Objective technical problem formulate (difference of the invention over the closest prior art → technical effect → problem)
- Obviousness assess: starting from the closest prior art and in expectation of the technical effect, would the person skilled in the art have arrived at the claimed solution in an obvious way (could-would approach)?
In the case of mixed inventions (technical + non-technical, for example business method + computer), only the features contributing to the technical contribution count (EPO "COMVIK", T 0641/00).
For utility models only an "inventive step" of a lower threshold applies (§ 1 GebrMG) — a lower requirement than § 4 PatG.
5. Industrial applicability § 5 PatG / Art. 57 EPC
Rarely a problem in practice; the main case: therapeutic and diagnostic methods (§ 2a(1) no. 2 PatG / Art. 53(c) EPC). Product claims ("substance for use in method X") remain patentable (purpose-bound substance protection).
6. Filing route strategy
| Route | When it makes sense |
|---|---|
| DPMA (national application) | Focus on the DE market; cost-sensitive applicants; strategy "first DE priority, then EPO / PCT within 12 months" |
| EPO (European application) | several EU/EPC countries; option, after grant, to choose unitary patent (Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2012) or the classic bundle phase with national validation |
| PCT (International Application) | global strategy; deferral of the country decision to 30/31 months; suitable if market/license potential is global |
| Utility Model (DPMA) | fast protection (no examination procedure), up to 10 years of protection, lower threshold of "inventive step"; fallback after the applicant's own prior publication due to the 6-month grace period under Sec. 3 GebrMG; no protection for methods (Sec. 2 No. 3 GebrMG) |
Right of priority under the Paris Convention (Art. 4): 12 months for patents, 6 months for utility models from the initial application. Within this period, the relevant effective date shifts.
7. Employee Invention (if applicable)
In the case of a service invention (Secs. 4, 5 ArbnErfG):
- The employee must report the invention to the employer promptly in writing (Sec. 5 ArbnErfG)
- The employer may claim the invention (Sec. 6 ArbnErfG); since the 2009 reform, deemed claim, if the employer does not release it within 4 months
- In the case of a claim: right to remuneration under Sec. 9 ArbnErfG, as a rule on the basis of the BMA 1959 remuneration guidelines (license analogy / share factor / economic exploitability)
- The employer assumes the obligation to file (Sec. 13 ArbnErfG)
Sources and Citation Style
Binding: ../../../references/zitierweise.md.
Statutes
- Sec. 1 PatG (patentable inventions, exclusions III/IV)
- Sec. 2, Sec. 2a PatG (public order, medical treatment, plant varieties)
- Sec. 3 PatG (novelty, grace period para. 5)
- Sec. 4 PatG (inventive step)
- Sec. 5 PatG (industrial applicability)
- Sec. 35 PatG (filing with the DPMA)
- Art. 52 EPC, Art. 54 EPC, Art. 55 EPC, Art. 56 EPC, Art. 57 EPC
- Sec. 1 GebrMG, Sec. 2 GebrMG, Sec. 3 GebrMG
- Regulation (EU) No. 1257/2012 (unitary patent)
- Paris Convention, Art. 4 (right of priority)
- ArbnErfG: § 5, § 6, § 9, § 13
Commentaries
- Melullis, in: Benkard, PatG, 12th ed. 2023, Sec. 1 marginal no. 1 et seq., Sec. 3 marginal no. 1 et seq., Sec. 4 marginal no. 1 et seq.
- Moufang, in: Schulte, PatG, 11th ed. 2022, Sec. 1 marginal no. 1 et seq.
- Mes, PatG, 5th ed. 2020, Sec. 1 marginal no. 1 et seq., Sec. 4 marginal no. 1 et seq.
- Singer/Stauder, EPC, 8th ed. 2022, Art. 52, 54, 56 each marginal no. 1 et seq.
- Bartenbach/Volz, ArbnErfG, 6th ed. 2019, Sec. 6, Sec. 9 each marginal no. 1 et seq.
Case Law
- EPO, Board of Appeal, T 0641/00 "COMVIK" (mixed inventions, technical contribution)
- EPO, Enlarged Board of Appeal, G 0003/08 (programs for data processing systems)
- EPO, Enlarged Board of Appeal, G 0001/92 (public accessibility)
- BGH, Judgment of 22.04.2010 – Xa ZB 20/08 "Dynamic document generation" (CII)
- BGH, "Logic verification", X ZB 11/98; BGH, "Profitability determination", X ZB 34/03; BGH, "Web page display", X ZR 121/09
- BGH, "Olanzapine", X ZR 89/07 (novelty, individualized disclosure)
Output format
GUTACHTEN — Vorprüfung Patentierbarkeit
Anmelder/Erfinder: <anonymisiert>
Gegenstand: <Erfindung in 1–2 Sätzen>
I. Sachverhalt
- Technischer Bereich
- Bekannter Stand der Technik
- Eigene Vorveröffentlichungen mit Datum
- Gewünschte Schutzländer
II. Frage(n)
- Patentierbarkeit?
- Sinnvoller Anmeldeweg?
- Gebrauchsmuster als Alternative / Doppelanmeldung?
III. Kurzantwort
🟢 / 🟡 / 🔴 <Einstufung in einem Satz>
IV. Rechtliche Bewertung
1. Technischer Charakter / Ausschlusstatbestände (§ 1 III/IV PatG, Art. 52 EPÜ)
2. Neuheit § 3 PatG / Art. 54 EPÜ
a) Stand der Technik
b) Eigene Vorveröffentlichungen + Schonfrist
3. Erfinderische Tätigkeit § 4 PatG / Art. 56 EPÜ (Aufgabe-Lösungs-Ansatz)
a) Nächstliegender Stand der Technik
b) Objektive technische Aufgabe
c) Naheliegen-Prüfung
4. Gewerbliche Anwendbarkeit § 5 PatG
5. Ggf. Gebrauchsmuster-Vergleich (§ 1 GebrMG)
6. Anmeldeweg-Strategie (DPMA / EPA / PCT; Einheitspatent ja/nein)
7. Ggf. ArbnErfG-Hinweis
V. Skelett Patentanmeldung
1. Titel
2. Technisches Gebiet
3. Stand der Technik
4. Aufgabe und Lösung (objektive technische Aufgabe)
5. Ansprüche
Hauptanspruch (Erzeugnis / Verfahren / Verwendung)
Unteransprüche (Ausgestaltungen)
6. Ausführungsbeispiele
7. Zeichnungen (Verweis)
VI. Risiken / offene Punkte
- Eigenvorveröffentlichungs-Risiko
- Anfechtbarkeit der erfinderischen Tätigkeit
- Sachverständiger / Patentanwalt erforderlich
VII. Quellenverzeichnis
Examples
Scenario: A start-up has developed an AI method that derives predictions about tool wear from sensor data of a machine tool and controls the machine accordingly. 3 months ago, a presentation at a specialist conference with slide publication.
Short answer: 🟡 Patentability fundamentally promising, since a concrete technical problem (tool wear / machine control) is solved by technical means (cf. BGH line on CII, EPO "COMVIK", T 0641/00). Self-prior publication is critical: for the EPO route, effectively novelty-destroying (Art. 55 EPC hardly applies); for the DPMA, a narrow grace period under § 3(5) PatG. Recommendation: Rapid filing with the DPMA within the 6-month grace period; in parallel, a utility model branch-off (§ 5 GebrMG) as a lifeboat; EPO/PCT strategy under the priority of the DPMA application within 12 months.
Risks / typical mistakes
- Overlooking self-prior publication — conference slides, website, pitch deck destroy novelty worldwide; the EPC knows no grace period outside Art. 55.
- Problem-solution approach not formulated — the application weakens itself if the objective technical problem cannot be derived from the description.
- CII inventions without technical contribution — AI algorithms without a technical effect outside the computer fall under § 1(3) no. 3, (4) PatG.
- Utility model as a panacea — methods are not eligible for utility model protection (§ 2 no. 3 GebrMG); no grant procedure, therefore legal validity is shaky.
- Paris priority period (12 months) missed — loss of the time rank for subsequent filings abroad.
- ArbnErfG notification forgotten — after the 2009 reform, a service invention may be deemed claimed; the right to remuneration under § 9 ArbnErfG remains.
- UPC opt-out not considered — for validated EP bundle patents, a strategic decision should be made about opting out during the transitional period.