Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 30 DECEMBER 2020

Determining Ranges Of Identifiers For Items Packed In A Container: 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

In this decision, the board of appeal once more uses the concept of the notional business person to draw the line between technical and non-technical features. Here are the practical takeaways

GermanyTechnology
Bastian Best
Bastian Best
Author LinkedIn connections

In this decision, the board of appeal once more uses the concept of the notional business person to draw the line between technical and non-technical features. Here are the practical takeaways from the decision T 0232/14 (Method and apparatus for identifying, authenticating, tracking and tracing manufactured items) of 6.10.2020 of Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01:

Catchword

The Board judges that using ranges of unit identifiers to label a number of (consecutive) unit identifiers of manufactured items is, at the level of generality at which it is claimed, on the business side of the line between technical and non-technical subject-matter (see e.g. T 144/11 – Security rating System / SATO MICHIHIRO, points 2.1, and 3.6 to 3.9).(See point 2.5 of the reasons)

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

Deepfakes, Chatbots, AI-Generated Text: European Commission Details Transparency Obligations Under The AI Act

The European Commission has published draft guidelines interpreting the AI Act's transparency obligations, establishing when and how organizations must disclose AI-generated content, deepfakes, and automated interactions. These guidelines clarify that deepfake labeling applies regardless of intent to deceive, that AI systems must identify themselves at the point of interaction, and that the editorial review exception for AI-generated text requires substantive human oversight with clear accountability.
European UnionTechnology
Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Article

Deepfakes, Chatbots, KI-Texte: EU-Kommission Konkretisiert Transparenzpflichten Der KI-Verordnung

The European Commission has published draft guidelines interpreting the AI Act's transparency obligations, establishing when and how organizations must disclose AI-generated content, deepfakes, and automated interactions. These guidelines clarify that deepfake labeling applies regardless of intent to deceive, that AI systems must identify themselves at the point of interaction, and that the editorial review exception for AI-generated text requires substantive human oversight with clear accountability.
GermanyTechnology
Greenberg Traurig
Greenberg Traurig
Article

Cybercrime & Compliance: Navigating Risks In A Digital World – A Conference Report

Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer's Frankfurt Corporate Crime & Investigations team hosted a conference examining cybercrime threats, AI-driven attacks, and the evolving responsibilities of corporate leadership in building cyber resilience. Senior representatives from law enforcement, industry leaders, and global legal partners explored prevention strategies, incident response protocols, and the complex liability landscape facing organizations in an increasingly digital threat environment.
GermanyTechnology
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP
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