logo czasopisma

Articles

2026: online-first

Does history matter? The impact of prosecution history on the scope of patent protection

DOI:
https://doi.org/10.36128/yxvhnb97
Submitted
25 October 2025
Published
19 December 2025
Versions

Abstract

In the context of contemporary patent law, the role and significance of patent claims are indisputable. In the course of the application process, it is incumbent upon the applicant to define the solution for which they are seeking protection. Following the granting of a patent, the claims delineate the subject matter of the patent, a crucial element in determining the scope of the exclusivity enjoyed by the right holder. Doubts and controversies arise in both doctrine and case law. Of particular concern is the admissibility of the interpretation of claims. The rules, basis and method of the latter are the source of patent law for the purposes of determining the scope of protection resulting from the granted patent, events and circumstances occurring in the proceedings in which the patentability of the subject matter of the application was examined.

References

  1. Allison John R., Lemley Mark A., The (Unnoticed) Demise of the Doctrine of Equivalents, „Stanford Law Review” 2007, nr 59, s. 955-986.
  2. Conigliaro Matthew J., Greenberg Andrew C., Lemley Mark A., Foreseeability in Patent Law, „Berkeley Technology Law Journal“ 2001, nr 3, s. 045-1078.
  3. Müller-Stoy Tilman, Bernatska Julia, File Wrapper Estoppel at the UPC, GRUR Patent 2023, 34, beck.de.
  4. Murray Sean, Chew Adrian, The Unified Patent System (Europe) [w:] Edward D. Manzo (red.), Patent Claim Interpretation, [St. Paul]: Thomson Reuters, 2011, s. 825.
  5. Ożegalska-Trybalska Justyna, Ograniczenia ochrony patentowej a naruszenie patentu, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2019.
  6. Pagenberg Jochen, Rodolph Cornish William (red.), Interpretation of Patents in Europe. Application of Article 69 EPC, Kolonia–Berlin–Monachium: Heymanns, 2006.
  7. Szczepanowska-Kozłowska Krystyna, Nowińska Ewa, Promińska Urszula, Prawa własności przemysłowej. Przedmiot, treść i naruszenie, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska 2021.
  8. Szczepanowska-Kozłowska Krystyna, Patent europejski. Przedmiotowy zakres ochrony, Warszawa: KiK Konieczny i Kruszewski, 1998.
  9. Sznajder Marta, Naruszenie patentu w świetle teorii ekwiwalentów - zasady stosowania, „Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego. Prawce z Prawa Własności Intelektualnej” 2015, nr 1, s. 52-91.
  10. Traple Elbieta (red.), Prawo patentowe, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2017.
  11. AIPPI Qustion Q229. The use of prosecution history in post-grant patent Proceedings, https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5bd185694d546e247ed8971c/t/5bd973ccb8a045e89c1f4205/1540977612630/Q229_SE_fin.pdf [dostęp: 1.09.2025]
  12. AIPPI Summary Report Question Q175; The role of equivalents and prosecution history in defining the scope of patent protection, https://www.aippi.fr/upload/Lucerne%202003%20Q173%20174%20175/sr175english.pdf [dostęp: 1.09.2025].
  13. Bey Céline, Birch Lydia, Schulte Carsten, Actavis v Eli Lilly: the doctrine of equivalents in the UK, France and Germany, https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=75e1ab43-76ec-470a-9675-8f4f0b809483 [dostęp: 1.09.2025].
  14. Montañá Miquel, Barcelona Court of Appeal publishes interesting judgment addressing the scope of estoppel, http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2019/07/11/barcelona-court-of-appeal-publishes-interesting-judgment-addressing-the-scope-of-estoppel/ [dostęp: 1.09.2025]
  15. European Patent Convention, Nördlingen: EPO, 2020, https://link.epo.org/web/EPC_17th_edition_2020_en.pdf [dostęp: 20.10.2025].
  16. Wyrok BGH z 20.04.1993 r., ZR 6/91, Weichvorrichtung, GRUR 1993, 886-896.
  17. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc. [1998] 138 F.3d 1448, 1460.
  18. Wyrok BGH z 12.03.2002 r., X ZR 43/01, Kunststoffrohrteil, https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&sid=5bcf51d6ff72ccf2d64e385e6a395a06&nr=21291&pos=5&anz=6 [dostęp: 1.09.2025].
  19. Decyzja BoA EPO z 8.04.2004 r., Heat processable metallic appearing coatings, G 0001/03, ECLI:EP:BA:2004:G000103.20040408.
  20. Wyrok Paris Court of Appeal, 4 sec. z 4.03.2009 r., 07/08437.
  21. Wyrok Francuskiego Sądu Najwyższego z 23.11.2010 r., 09-15.668.
  22. Wyrok Paris Court of First Instance z 20.09.2011 r., 10/02548, SEPPIC v. IMCD.
  23. Wyrok Tribunal Supremo z 15.06 2012 r., STS 366/12, ECLI:ES:TS:2012:4178.
  24. Wyrok BGH z 14.06.2016 r., X ZR 29/15, Pemetrexed, ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:140616UXZR29.15.0.
  25. Wyrok UKSC z 12. 07.2017 r., Actavis v. Eli Lilly [2015] EWCA Civ 555-666.
  26. Orzeczenie EWHC z 11.06.2018 r., L’Oréal Societe Anonyme & Anor v L’Oréal (UK) Ltd, EWHC 391.
  27. Wyrok Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona z 13.05.2019 r. , SAP 862/2019.
  28. Wyrok Einheitliches Patentgericht / Düsseldorf z 11.12.2023 r., Ortovox Sportartikel v. Mammut, UPC_CFI_452/2023.
  29. Wyrok Einheitliches Patentgericht München z 20.12. 2023 r., SES-imagotag SA v Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, UPC_CFI_292/2023.
  30. Wyrok Einheitliches Patentgericht / Düsseldorf z 30.04.2024 r., 10x Genomics, Inc. V. Curio Bioscience Inc., UPC_CFI_463/2023.
  31. Wyrok CoA Luxembourg z 13.05.2024 r., VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA, UPC_CoA_ 1/2024.
  32. Wyrok CoA Luxembourg z 24.09.2024 r., Mammut Sports Group AG, Mammut Sports Group GmbH, vs. Ortovox Sportartikel GmbH, UPC_CoA_182/2024.
  33. Wyrok Einheitliches Patentgericht / Düsseldorf z 31.10. 2024 r., SodaStream v. Aarke, UPC CFI 373_2023.
  34. Wyrok CoA Luxembourg z 20.12.2024 r., Alexion v. Amgen, UPC_CoA_405/2024.
  35. Decyzja BoA EPO z 18.06.2025 r., Heated aerosol generating article with thermal spreading wrap, G 0001/24, ECLI:EP:BA:2025:G000124.20250618.
  36. Wyrok CoA Luxembourg z 19.06.2025 r., Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Samsung Bioepis NL B.V., UPC_CoA_402/2024, UPC_CoA_405/2024.
  37. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. [2025] 131 F.4th 1330.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.