Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Articles

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
19-12-2025

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.
    View in Google Scholar
  2. Conigliaro Matthew J., Greenberg Andrew C., Lemley Mark A., Foreseeability in Patent Law, „Berkeley Technology Law Journal“ 2001, nr 3, s. 045-1078.
    View in Google Scholar
  3. Müller-Stoy Tilman, Bernatska Julia, File Wrapper Estoppel at the UPC, GRUR Patent 2023, 34, beck.de.
    View in Google Scholar
  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.
    View in Google Scholar
  5. Ożegalska-Trybalska Justyna, Ograniczenia ochrony patentowej a naruszenie patentu, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2019.
    View in Google Scholar
  6. Pagenberg Jochen, Rodolph Cornish William (red.), Interpretation of Patents in Europe. Application of Article 69 EPC, Kolonia–Berlin–Monachium: Heymanns, 2006.
    View in Google Scholar
  7. Szczepanowska-Kozłowska Krystyna, Nowińska Ewa, Promińska Urszula, Prawa własności przemysłowej. Przedmiot, treść i naruszenie, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska 2021.
    View in Google Scholar
  8. Szczepanowska-Kozłowska Krystyna, Patent europejski. Przedmiotowy zakres ochrony, Warszawa: KiK Konieczny i Kruszewski, 1998.
    View in Google Scholar
  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.
    View in Google Scholar
  10. Traple Elbieta (red.), Prawo patentowe, Warszawa: Wolters Kluwer Polska, 2017.
    View in Google Scholar
  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]
    View in Google Scholar
  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].
    View in Google Scholar
  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].
    View in Google Scholar
  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]
    View in Google Scholar
  15. European Patent Convention, Nördlingen: EPO, 2020, https://link.epo.org/web/EPC_17th_edition_2020_en.pdf [dostęp: 20.10.2025].
    View in Google Scholar
  16. Wyrok BGH z 20.04.1993 r., ZR 6/91, Weichvorrichtung, GRUR 1993, 886-896.
    View in Google Scholar
  17. Cybor Corp. v. FAS Techs., Inc. [1998] 138 F.3d 1448, 1460.
    View in Google Scholar
  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].
    View in Google Scholar
  19. Decyzja BoA EPO z 8.04.2004 r., Heat processable metallic appearing coatings, G 0001/03, ECLI:EP:BA:2004:G000103.20040408.
    View in Google Scholar
  20. Wyrok Paris Court of Appeal, 4 sec. z 4.03.2009 r., 07/08437.
    View in Google Scholar
  21. Wyrok Francuskiego Sądu Najwyższego z 23.11.2010 r., 09-15.668.
    View in Google Scholar
  22. Wyrok Paris Court of First Instance z 20.09.2011 r., 10/02548, SEPPIC v. IMCD.
    View in Google Scholar
  23. Wyrok Tribunal Supremo z 15.06 2012 r., STS 366/12, ECLI:ES:TS:2012:4178.
    View in Google Scholar
  24. Wyrok BGH z 14.06.2016 r., X ZR 29/15, Pemetrexed, ECLI:DE:BGH:2016:140616UXZR29.15.0.
    View in Google Scholar
  25. Wyrok UKSC z 12. 07.2017 r., Actavis v. Eli Lilly [2015] EWCA Civ 555-666.
    View in Google Scholar
  26. Orzeczenie EWHC z 11.06.2018 r., L’Oréal Societe Anonyme & Anor v L’Oréal (UK) Ltd, EWHC 391.
    View in Google Scholar
  27. Wyrok Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona z 13.05.2019 r. , SAP 862/2019.
    View in Google Scholar
  28. Wyrok Einheitliches Patentgericht / Düsseldorf z 11.12.2023 r., Ortovox Sportartikel v. Mammut, UPC_CFI_452/2023.
    View in Google Scholar
  29. Wyrok Einheitliches Patentgericht München z 20.12. 2023 r., SES-imagotag SA v Hanshow Technology Co. Ltd, UPC_CFI_292/2023.
    View in Google Scholar
  30. Wyrok Einheitliches Patentgericht / Düsseldorf z 30.04.2024 r., 10x Genomics, Inc. V. Curio Bioscience Inc., UPC_CFI_463/2023.
    View in Google Scholar
  31. Wyrok CoA Luxembourg z 13.05.2024 r., VusionGroup SA (formerly SES-imagotag SA, UPC_CoA_ 1/2024.
    View in Google Scholar
  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.
    View in Google Scholar
  33. Wyrok Einheitliches Patentgericht / Düsseldorf z 31.10. 2024 r., SodaStream v. Aarke, UPC CFI 373_2023.
    View in Google Scholar
  34. Wyrok CoA Luxembourg z 20.12.2024 r., Alexion v. Amgen, UPC_CoA_405/2024.
    View in Google Scholar
  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.
    View in Google Scholar
  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.
    View in Google Scholar
  37. Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed Inc. [2025] 131 F.4th 1330.
    View in Google Scholar

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.