3.4. Obligation to maintain secrecy
Overview
3.4. Obligation to maintain secrecy
|
You are viewing the 9th edition (2019) of this publication; for the 10th edition (2022) see here |
- T 2702/18
1. Zwischen Zulieferern und Kunden der Fahrzeugindustrie ist ein branchenübliches Vertrauensverhältnis anzunehmen, das es qua Handelsbrauch verbietet, dass der Zulieferer Betriebsgeheimnisse des Kunden, in deren Besitz er im Rahmen der Kooperation mit diesem kommt, an beliebige Dritte weitergibt. Hieraus ergibt sich aber keine Verpflichtung des Zulieferers, sein eigenes Wissen oder aus der Kooperation erlangte Kenntnisse über Vorrichtungen, die der Kunde bereits zuvor öffentlich zugänglich gemacht hatte, geheim zu halten. 2. Eine weitergehende stillschweigende Geheimhaltungsvereinbarung über sämtliche Umstände einer Kooperation setzt (im Anschluss an T 830/90, Gründe 3.2.2) voraus, dass beide Parteien einen entsprechenden Rechtsbindungswillen hatten und konkludent zum Ausdruck brachten, die gemeinsame Entwicklung nicht an die Öffentlichkeit gelangen zu lassen - zumindest nicht solange,wie ein gemeinsames Interesse an einer Geheimhaltung besteht. 3. Die Annahme einer tatsächlichen Vermutung, dass die Partner einer gemeinsamen Weiterentwicklung im Bereich des Fahrzeugbaus sich im Zweifel bis zur Veröffentlichung des entwickelten Produkts gegenseitig bindend zur Geheimhaltung verpflichten wollen, setzt als Anknüpfungstatsachen zumindest die Feststellung des Bewusstseins voraus, dass es sich um eine gemeinsame Entwicklung beider Partner handelt, und dass beide Seiten an einer Geheimhaltung interessiert sein werden.
- T 2037/18
1. Nach den im Rahmen des EPÜ geltenden Regeln zur Darlegungs- und Beweislast hat jede Partei die ihr günstigen Tatsachen vorzutragen und zu beweisen, 'negativa non sunt probanda' (siehe Punkte 4 und 8).
2. Dementsprechend ist die Übergabe eines vorbenutzten Gegenstandes an einen Käufer durch den Einsprechenden vorzutragen und zu beweisen, die etwaige Bindung des Empfängers durch eine Geheimhaltungsvereinbarung (=Vertraulichkeitsabrede) vom Patentinhaber (siehe Punkt 8).
3. Der Vortrag des Patentinhabers kann zwar ggfs. zur Entstehung einer sekundären Darlegungs- und Beweislast des Einsprechenden führen, dies jedoch nur 'ex nunc' und damit ohne Auswirkung auf das Substantiierungserfordernis im Rahmen der Einspruchsschrift gemäß Regel 76 (2) c), 3. Punkt EPÜ (siehe Punkte 10 bis 13).
4. Es besteht keine aus der Rechtsprechung der Beschwerdekammern bekannte Vermutung, wonach zwischen Herstellern von Schienenfahrzeugen und Bahnbetreibergesellschaften bezüglich ausgelieferter und abgenommener Fahrzeuge in der Regel Vertraulichkeit vereinbart ist (siehe Punkt 17).
- T 2239/15
A disclosure is regarded as made available to the public if, at the relevant date, it was possible for members of the public to gain knowledge of its contents and there was no bar of confidentiality restricting the use or dissemination of such knowledge (T 877/90).
In the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement, a bar of confidentiality cannot be seen to have been in place, in the present case. In view of the collaborative nature of the development process and the consensus-building procedure inherent to MPEG, confidentiality could not be guaranteed.
The evidence points to a system designed to guarantee a certain "privacy" of its data while at the same time being sufficiently pragmatic and flexible to allow consultation with other parties in order for it satisfactorily to fulfil its mission.
- Case law 2021
- Case law 2020
-
The decisive issue in T 72/16 was whether the alleged public prior use by the sale and delivery of products was sufficiently proven. In this case Aspen sold a product (48 pipe sections) to Technip. The board concurred with the patent proprietor that it was not a sale and delivery of a commercially available end product which had thus become publicly available. The evidence showed that it was rather a development product, a prototype supplied in the course of an ongoing collaboration programme. Hence, Technip could not be regarded as a mere customer and neither of the partners as a member of the public. According to the jurisprudence of the boards of appeal, such a relationship between two companies which contracted to develop and deliver prototypes and products for test purposes cannot be treated as equivalent to that between a dealer and a customer and in these cases an obligation to maintain secrecy applied. In accordance with the normal practice in those cases there was at least an implicit duty of confidentiality on both companies involved. Thus, the burden of proof was on the appellant (opponent) to establish that there was no confidentiality agreement. The witness’ suggestion that the NDA was asymmetric, i.e. only binding on Aspen but not on Technip appeared not to be probable and from experience rather contrary to the situation in comparable cooperation projects, and furthermore not supported by any further evidence. It was not surprising that the witness, an engineer, not an IP specialist, was not aware of all the confidentiality requirements binding the other party. The board came to the conclusion that Technip was not a mere customer. Rather, Aspen and Technip were engaged as partners in a product development project and their collaboration was governed by an at least implicit confidentiality agreement. None of the prior uses had been proven, so that none of them formed part of the prior art.
- Case law 2019
-
Case T 2239/15 concerned the public availability of documents (D1/D2) produced during the drafting of standards documents in the framework of the MPEG standardisation processes. The examining division concluded that D1 and D2 formed part of the prior art. The board concurred with the view of the examining division that the subject-matter of claims 1, 18 and 19 was disclosed in both documents. The relevance of contents of D1 and D2 was not questioned but the applicant objected that both were confidential working documents which had been submitted to the MPEG working group by those MPEG members involved in the elaboration of a particular new standard. Various documents regarding the structure of the MPEG group, its working procedures and the conditions of accessibility to the documents it produced were submitted. The board stated that the question of the public availability of documents D1 and D2 was directly linked to the procedures of MPEG when elaborating new standards. The large amount of evidence available in the case in hand allowed for a deeper understanding of the structure and working procedures within MPEG, a Subcommittee of the joint ISO/IEC Technical Committee. The decision also described the kind of documents involved: draft documents ("input documents", also referred to as "m" documents), "output documents" (also referred to as "w" documents), as well as how MPEG committee members should treat documents. In the absence of an explicit confidentiality agreement, a bar of confidentiality could not be seen to have been in place in the case in hand. The working group was small enough to make the explicit signing of confidentiality agreements possible, if "absolute" confidentiality (to keep it strictly limited to this group of members present in the meetings) had been intended. MPEG did not take this route. In view of the collaborative nature of the development process and the consensus-building procedure inherent to MPEG, confidentiality could not be guaranteed. The appellant was not able to demonstrate that the MPEG system could guarantee, or even expect, confidentiality. On the contrary, all evidence pointed to a system designed to guarantee a certain "privacy" of its data while at the same time being sufficiently pragmatic and flexible to allow consultation with other parties in order for it satisfactorily to fulfil its mission (the general idea behind a standardisation body of trying to build a consensus around a standard by wide consultation with interested parties). As a result, D1 and D2 were publicly available at the filing date of the application and the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked novelty.