Layher
Patents
Void!
Layher
Patents
Void!
from
Federal Patent Court declares German and European patent of Wilhelm Layher Verwaltungs-GmbH for scaffolding frames for system scaffolding null and void.
Layher took action for patent infringement
Layher, one of the leading manufacturers of scaffolding, took action against our client for patent infringement. An infringement of the German patent DE 101 12 369 and the European patent EP 1 362 150 was asserted.
Subject matter of the patents:
The patents both related to a scaffolding frame for system scaffolding with a special connection device for guardrail posts.
Main idea of the invention:
The patent claimed a solution in which the rear guardrails no longer have to be attached with wedge couplers, but are instead attached via elongated holes in the scaffolding rod with a detachable connection.
Layher took legal action against our client on the basis of these patents before the Mannheim Regional Court. Layher accused our client of also placing scaffolding frames with slotted holes on the market.
Action for annulment at the Federal Patent Court
Together with the patent attorneys involved, we filed nullity actions against Layher’s patents with the Federal Patent Court. Our aim was to have the legal validity of the patent reviewed, as we were of the opinion that it was neither new in the sense of patent law nor did it involve an inventive step and therefore should not have been granted from the outset.
In our opinion, the subject matter of the granted patent claim 1 is suggested by a combination of already known technical solutions and is therefore not based on an inventive step.
Judgment: Federal Patent Court declares patents null and void
After a comprehensive examination of the factual and legal situation, the Federal Patent Court upheld our action in full. In its judgments of July 10, 2024 (Ref. 8 Ni 32/23 and 8 Ni 31/23), the 8th Nullity Senate ruled that the patents should be declared null and void to the extent of the main claim.
- Lack of inventive step: The court found that the patented scaffolding frame essentially used already known technical features and that its technical solution was obvious from the prior art. The inventive step required for a patent was therefore lacking.
The subject matter of claim 1 as granted is not patentable because it is not based on an inventive step, since the claimed frame of reference is obvious to a person skilled in the art from the prior art and teachings presented.
- Technical anticipation by prior art: The court confirmed that the essential elements of the patented solution had already been anticipated in earlier publications and designs – including the so-called “Hünnebeck quick-assembly scaffolding”. The differences to the prior art were minimal and obvious to a person skilled in the art, so that no inventive step was recognizable.
- Inadmissible extension of the patent in the amended version: The defendant attempted to defend the patent in an amended form (auxiliary request). The court rejected this because the new version went beyond the original disclosure. This attempt to “rescue” the patent was therefore also unsuccessful.
Conclusion
This decision is a significant success for our client and underlines the need to critically scrutinize patents. Not every technical solution deserves patent protection, especially if it is based on designs that are already known. Layher takes a different view and has appealed against the decisions to the Federal Court of Justice.
We are happy
to advise you on
this topic!
