The Federal Court of Justice has ruled in its judgment of 23. April 2013 (X ZR 27/12 – “Vehicle navigation system”) the annulment of a European patent for a navigation system was confirmed. The focus is on the question, which features count for inventive step in computer-implemented inventions.

Guiding principle

The instruction to the expert, Under certain conditions, certain detailed information is provided during the voice output of a navigation instruction (here: Street names) considered, concerns the content of the information displayed optically or acoustically by the navigation system and is not to be taken into account when examining the technical teaching of the patent for inventive step.

Facts

The patent in dispute (EP 973 011) claimed a vehicle navigation system, which gives out driving instructions acoustically, including street names and distance information, and repeats them with the updated distance if desired. goal was, to make the driver less dependent on looking at the display. The Federal Patent Court declared the patent invalid, because the acoustic output of the street names already displayed was obvious compared to a US patent.

The decision

The BGH rejected the appeal. Die Wiedergabe von Informationen ist nach Art. 52 Abs. 2 BUCHST. d, Abs. 3 EPC as such not patentable. Instructions regarding the content of the information presented can only support inventive step, insofar as they determine or influence the solution to a technical problem using technical means. The technical means here lies in improved acoustic route guidance; what information (the street name) be issued, is irrelevant for that, as long as this does not result in any particular technical difficulties.

The requests for help also failed. The combination of recorded announcements with synthesized street names was a technical feature, but suggested by a Japanese disclosure document.

Importance for practice

For software-related inventions, the technical contribution should lie in the type of processing or output, not in the content of the information displayed. Claims and description should clearly identify the technical problems and their solution. The summary reflects the legal status at the time of the decision.

Full text: rechtsprechung-im-internet.de (File number X ZR 27/12)

You have a similar question? More about our advice on patent applications or make an appointment.

Summary of the decision; no legal advice in individual cases.