Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 09 JULY 2026

Monitoring A Manufacturing Process In A Textile Plant: Non-Technical

Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Contributor
Bardehle Pagenberg

Bardehle Pagenberg

IP practitioners with technical expertise As one of Europe’s leading IP law firms, BARDEHLE...

View firm profile
Explore more from Bardehle Pagenberg

A European patent covering a method for monitoring textile manufacturing processes was revoked after appeal proceedings found that its distinguishing features lacked technical character. The Technical Board of Appeal examined whether data processing steps for predicting manufacturing parameters could contribute to inventive step when their subsequent technical use was not explicitly specified in the claims.

European UnionIntellectual Property
Patrick Heckeler
Patrick Heckeler
Author LinkedIn connections

This decision relates to a European patent directed to a method of monitoring a manufacturing process in a textile plant. In this case, the appellant was the opponent to a European patent. The opposition was rejected at the first instance, but the appellant (opponent) won the appeal proceedings and the European patent was eventually revoked. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 1313/17 () of 9.11.2021 by Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.06:

Key takeaways

Despite being non-technical as such, these features could still contribute to the invention’s technical character if they were to form the basis for a further technical use of the outcome of the claimed method

The invention

The patent provides a method to optimize a textile manufacturing process (213) in a textile plant such as a spinning mill is applied when raw material (201) is processed in the manufacturing process in several processing steps (202, 203) into intermediate products and an end product (204) is

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Der Bundesgerichtshof wendet die „Pastiche“-Doktrin des EuGH an und bestätigt die Rechtmäßigkeit von Musik-Sampling

The German Federal Court of Justice has delivered a landmark ruling in the decades-long "Metall auf Metall" litigation, applying the EU Court of Justice's framework to determine whether unauthorized music sampling can qualify as lawful "pastiche" under copyright law. The decision examines whether a two-second rhythm sequence from Kraftwerk's 1977 recording, used repeatedly in a 1997 song, constitutes permissible artistic dialogue or copyright infringement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Article

LD Düsseldorf, August 17, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025, UPC_CFI_931/2026

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court issued an order addressing applications for protection of confidential information in patent infringement proceedings between Yangtze Memory Technologies and Micron Technology entities. The case involves European Patent EP 3 909 047 with jurisdictional implications across Germany and France under the UPC Agreement.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

CoA, August 17, 2026, UPC_CoA 365/2025 & UPC_CoA 367/2025

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.
GermanyLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

LD Helsinki, April 29, 2026, Decision On Infringement And Validity, UPC_CFI_214/2023, UPC_CFI_403/2025

The Helsinki Local Division of the Unified Patent Court examined infringement proceedings involving EP 3 295 663, with AIM Sport Development AG asserting patent rights against multiple TGI Sport entities across European jurisdictions. The case included a counterclaim for revocation, requiring the court to analyze validity under Articles 54, 56, and 123(2) EPC alongside infringement claims under Article 69 EPC.
FinlandIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg
Article

Local Division Düsseldorf, September 1, 2026, Decision On Infringement Action, UPC_CFI_307/2025

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.
GermanyIntellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg
Bardehle Pagenberg