Central Division Munich, July 21, 2026, Decision – Device Claim Defined by Structure Lacks Novelty Regardless of Function; No Obvious Typographical Error in Prior Art Where the Term Used Is Technically Plausible; UPC_CFI_714/2025

A device claim defined exclusively by structural features is not, as a rule, limited to the device performing any particular function. If prior art discloses a device fulfilling all structural features of the claim and that device is suitable for the claimed purpose, the invention is not novel over this prior art, even if the prior art device achieves different technical effects or uses the structural elements for a different purpose.

A feature is only implicitly disclosed if the skilled person would regard it as necessarily and directly resulting from the explicit disclosure. It is not sufficient to combine preferred values from different parts of a description to arrive at the claimed feature by calculation – particularly where the prior art makes clear that those values are interdependent and context-specific.

A term in prior art is not an “obvious” typographical error if, from the perspective of a skilled person, it is not implausible that the term was used intentionally in its stated meaning, and it is not immediately apparent that something else than is stated was intended. Here, the use of “minimum shaft diameter” was not obviously wrong – the description elsewhere also defines structure dimensions as dependent on shaft dimensions, making the stated term technically plausible.