Germany: Patent Claims Including Numerical Data - Scope of Protection & Doctrine of Equivalents

Co-written by Clemens Rübel

I. Introduction

In a landmark decision (Chimney Pipe Case), rendered on March 22, 2001, the District Court Düsseldorf, statistically the most frequented first instance Court for patent infringement proceedings in Germany and even in Europe, had to decide on the scope of protection of a patent which limited its scope by numbers in its claims. Here, the Court had to balance important principles against each other when deciding whether the scope of protection also covers embodiments which lie outside of the range indicated by these numbers: The principle of rewarding the inventor with an adequate scope of protection versus certainty of the law in view of the specific claim language. This area of conflict regularly comes up with decisions in the field of the doctrine of equivalents.

II. The doctrine of equivalents

1. The Principle of rewarding the inventor versus certainty of the law

The entire patent law is based on the economic policy consideration that the inventor should be rewarded for his contribution to technical progress by granting a patent and protecting his invention during the (limited) time of the term of his patent. It should be worthwhile for the inventor to disclose as quickly as possible his invention to the public, instead of using it secretly on his own, or leaving the patent unused. In form of a monopoly lasting for a certain period of time, the inventor obtains the economic value of his invention. The scope of this monopoly, however, has to be determined precisely, because competitors have to know the borderline which limits their right to manufacture without entering into conflicts with patents, and from where on they have to ask the inventor for a license or develop and use alternative technologies. The certainty of the law, on the other hand, is as important for the functioning of the economy as the rewarding of the inventor. A precise borderline, limiting the scope of protection, is therefore desirable.

Thus, a limitation of the patent protection to the wording as literally claimed would be very desirable in accordance with the spirit of the certainty of the law. However, it would be easy to circumvent the wording of the patents by changing infringing embodiments in such a way that the embodiment would differ only slightly from the wording of the claims without giving up the principles and advantages of the invention, so that the holder of the patent would not receive his fair reward. The inventor, on the other hand, would like to have everything protected which was published by the patent, including the description and drawings.

2. Applicable law for the scope of protection

The European Patent Law and the literally corresponding German Law try to find a harmonizing compromise in providing that "the extent of the protection conferred by a (European) patent or a (European) patent application shall be determined by the terms of the claims. Nevertheless, the description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims". The protocol to the interpretation of Art. 69 EPC which is, according to Art. 164 (1) EPC, part of the EPC and applicable to European as well as national patents, again precises the compromise found in Art. 69 EPC:

Art. 69 should not be interpreted in the sense that the extent of the protection conferred by a European patent is to be understood as that defined by the strict, literal meaning of the wording used in the claims, the description and drawings being employed only for the purpose of resolving an ambiguity found in the claims. Neither should it be interpreted in the sense that the claims serve only as a guideline and that the actual protection conferred may extend to what, from a consideration of the description and drawings by a person skilled in the art, the patentee has contemplated. On the contrary, it is to be interpreted as defining a position between these extremes which combines a fair protection for the patentee with a reasonable degree of certainty for third parties.

3. The development of the doctrine of equivalents in case law

The provision that the scope of protection shall be determined by the terms of the claims, does not mean that only the literally claimed embodiments fall within the scope of protection. It is quite impossible to phrase a wording for the claims that includes all conceivable future possibilities. Therefore, criteria have been developed in case law, according to which also equivalent infringing embodiments fall within the scope of protection of the patent. Only such embodiments are protected which use means to an equal effect, which the person skilled in the art would derive from the patent claims by employing the description and drawings on the basis of professional knowledge and of conclusions from the terms of the patent claims. Further, the infringing embodiment has to have an inventive distance to the prior art for being covered by the doctrine of equivalents.

3.1. Equal effect

An objective examination of the equivalent should always start with the question whether the means named in the claims have technically the same effect as the used exchanged means. Hereby, a comparison has to occur between the object of the invention and the attacked embodiment as a whole, not only by comparison of single features, because the technically equal effect can only be considered in view of the scope of the whole solution.

All features should be realized essentially and altogether at least in a different shaping, whereas a feature is given if the concrete embodiment of a feature is to be understood as a form of a general statement, the equal effect of which a person skilled in the art can determine by interpretation. It does not matter whether the concrete accused embodiment has the same number of features as claimed in the asserted patent (see the Fixing Device II Case by the Federal Supreme Court 1994).

3.2 Solving of problem

The equal effect can only be obtained if the problem of the patent can be solved nearly entirely with the exchanged means. The attacked embodiment should have a different teaching than the patent or contradict the basic idea of the invention (Federal Supreme Court 1994: Rake Blade Case).

3.3 The possibility to find the equivalent embodiment

A person skilled in the art must at least be able to deduce the means of the attacked embodiment with equal effect from the claims by employing the description and drawing, based on his professional knowledge (Federal Supreme Court 1994: Segmentation Device Case)By definition of the scope of protection, the whole prior art belongs to professional knowledge, without limitation to the prior art which is cited in the patent specification or which belongs to general professional knowledge. Solutions which are not based on the invention described in the patent claims, but leave the meaning described therein, cannot be judged as an equivalent infringement of the patent. Further, the scope of protection of a patent is also left if an inventive step must be involved to reach the equivalent embodiment.

3.4 The estoppel of the free prior art (Molded Curbstone defense)

In practice, a defendant often tries to defend itself by arguing that the embodiment accused under the doctrine of equivalents does not constitute a patentable invention in comparison to the prior art and therefore does not infringe the patent.

This estoppel was created by a major decision rendered by the Federal Supreme Court in 1986 (Molded Curbstone Case). It was the first decision rendered by the Federal Supreme Court on the basis of the doctrine of equivalents under the new German Patent Act of 1981. Most of the later decisions regarding the doctrine of equivalents refer to this decision. The background of this decision is that the holder of a patent cannot obtain patent protection for something which is not patentable. There is no reason to reward patent protection under the doctrine of equivalents for a solution which is obvious to a person skilled in the art from the prior art. In other words: Anybody is free to use solutions derived from the prior art or suggested by the prior art without involving the asserted invention.

However, the Molded Curbstone Estoppel has its limits: Under German Law, the validity of the patent cannot be challenged in an infringement proceeding. The validity of a patent can only be challenged in a separate opposition proceeding or in a nullity action. Therefore, the defense that the accused product is not patentable in view of the prior art can only be raised, if the prior art cited as support for this argument concerns the modified features of the accused product, and not only those features which literally correspond to the patent. Thus, it is provided that this defense is only applicable in cases of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and not in cases of literal infringement, in which a separate opposition or nullity case is to be filed for asserting invalidity.

III. Numerical data in the patent claims

In the above mentioned decision of the District Court Düsseldorf concerning the scope of protection of patents which include numerical data in the patent claims, it was to be considered whether an attacked embodiment can fall within the scope of protection of a patent according to the doctrine of equivalents, even if it lies outside the claimed range of numerical data.

In summary, in the Chimney Pipe Case cited above, a chimney pipe made of different pipe parts was claimed with each part having a conically extended and a conically tapered end with an equal cone angle of 0.5° to 2°. The attacked embodiment, however, had a cone angle of about 2.5°. Therefore, a literal use of the patent could not be confirmed, but an infringement according to the doctrine of equivalents could still apply: The accused embodiment has, in the sense of the invention, an equal effect to the patented embodiment and its use was arguably suggested to a person skilled in the art with the knowledge of the claimed range of angles.

Nevertheless, in summary, the Düsseldorf Court argued in the Chimney Pipe Case that the application of the doctrine of equivalents on patents claiming numerical data should be considered differently. Numbers provide only a limited scope for interpretation, as opposed to descriptive or functional claim features. Descriptive indications should be interpreted in order to avoid a lack of clarity in the patent claims, and also for the clarification of the technical terms used in the patent claims as well as for the clarification of the meaning and the significance of the invention. The terms of a concept do not automatically correspond to the wording of the concept. Every patent writes its own dictionary. When the technical features are described in words, the difficulty always arises that they have to be expressed so generally that, at best, all possible embodiments with equal functions are covered and have to be considered in advance. Since this is very difficult and sometimes not possible, the inventor may not receive the reward to which he would actually be entitled and therefore the doctrine of equivalents had been developed.

The possibilities of interpretation, for numerical data and ranges are much smaller. It is only possible in exceptional cases that the meaning or terms of a number do not correspond to its wording. Normally, a number always has the same meaning. At the most, it can be interpreted as to which chemical, physical or mechanical parameter the numbers refer to or with which method of measurement they should be applied. In very rare cases, a correction of patent claims may be considered, e.g. if there is an evident typological mistake in the numerical data, or if a decimal has been moved or the order of numbers has been twisted, provided that a person skilled in the art, after comparison with the specification, detects such an obvious mistake.

There is some more room for interpretation if the numbers are provided with the addition "circa" or "approximately". Here, it is clear that this only concerns the order of magnitude of the corresponding parameters.

It is already clarified by case law that in closed numerical data for a range ("from ... to..."), all single values between the limiting values are covered, even if a single value between the limiting values has special, unpredicted or very ordinary, expected effects. For data with ranges that are open on one side, the interpretation is more difficult. With the patent specification and from the point of view of a person skilled in the art, it has to be determined if, for example, the detail "at least 10" is claimed, whether this patent also covers a value of over 100. It is similarly questionable in case "less than 10" is claimed whether the value "0" is covered by this numerical data.

When formulating a patent, it is much easier to determine a numerical range in which the inventive effect and advantages are given, in comparison to patents in which the inventive effects have to be expressed by words. One can expect from the applicant to make up his mind about the numerical range needed for the purposes of the invention and to compose the wording of the claims and the description in such a way that these maximum and/or minimum values appear in the patent claims, delimiting it from the prior art and representing the content of the invention in the best possible manner.

A very limited application of the doctrine of equivalents for features with numerical data is also required with regard to the certainty of the law. Any third person who has potentially spent a lot of time and money on the development and marketing of products should know exactly the limit between infringement and non-infringement of a patent. As far as claims including numerical data are concerned, a third person can assume that the range was chosen on purpose and that one can go very close to the limit when developing new products. If the judges at infringement courts would create a big "security range" around the precisely claimed range in favor of the holder of the patent, the responsibility for the accurate determination of the claimed protection by the patent would be moved from the holder of the patent to the competitors and the public. Why should a competitor be obliged to judge on his own risk and his own responsibility, when - instead of the numerical limits set by the patentee in the patent claims - the limit is between infringement and non-infringement of the patents? On the contrary, any third person should be able to reliably see the difference between actions that are allowed or not allowed.

On this basis, the court held in the above cited Chimney Pipe Case that, at best, only a very slight divergence from the claims can still fall within the scope of protection according to the doctrine of equivalents, but not a divergence which amounts to approximately 35 %, as in the present case. By indicating the claimed numerical data, the owner of the patent-in-suit consciously wanted to distinguish it from the prior art. Therefore, it was also the patentee's clear intention that ranges outside of the claimed range should remain free. Third persons should be able to rely on the claimed ranges.

IV. Conclusion

If numbers are indicated in the claims, the concept of certainty of the law prevails over the interest in rewarding the inventor, in case the inventor and his agent precise their patent by indicating numbers, and the attacked embodiment lies outside of that value, even if the attacked embodiment would normally infringe according to the doctrine of equivalents.

Therefore, it is advisable to check in detail, before inserting numeric data into patent claims, whether this is really inevitable or whether ranges outside of the indicated range really do not lead to a useful embodiment of the invention. In practice, it is often the case (and the present Chimney Pipe Case is just one example for many) that patents with numeric data are circumvented by embodiments with equal effects and derivable from the claimed data by a person skilled in the art and having slightly different values than the values claimed. At patent infringement courts, the holder of a patent limiting himself in such a way will have limited success in prohibiting such circumventing embodiments.

© by Reinhardt Schuster and Clemens Rübel 2002, attorneys at law with the intellectual property law firm Bardehle Pagenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler Isenbruck, Munich. First published in Managing Intellectual Property, Patent Yearbook, London, 2002.

Reinhardt Schuster

Reinhardt Schuster is a German attorney-at-law since 1990 and since 1995 partner with the Intellectual Property Law firm Bardehle Pagenberg Dost Altenburg Geissler Isenbruck which has offices in Munich, Düsseldorf, Mannheim, Paris, Alicante and Shanghai. Mr. Schuster’s primary areas of practice are litigation and counseling in all matters of intellectual property, particularly patent litigation, further in matters of trademark, unfair competition and antitrust, licensing and IP related contracts. He is representing international corporate clients in large scale infringement suits before German Courts and has taken part in numerous important cases of multinational patent litigation.

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.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Some comments from our readers…
“The articles are extremely timely and highly applicable”
“I often find critical information not available elsewhere”
“As in-house counsel, Mondaq’s service is of great value”

Mondaq Advice Centre (MACs)
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.