2026 archive topic · 2026-07-15
Retrospectively prepared on 13 November 2026. The archive date places the topic in the annual overview; the legal review and sources reflect the stated preparation date.
In T-40/25, decided on 1 July 2026, the General Court dismissed the action concerning a lampshade design. The dispute involved earlier illustrations in patent specifications. In the circumstances assessed, the Court rejected importing unrelated elements from the patent description and other figures into the earlier designs relied on.
Four practical situations
The following examples illustrate possible review steps; they are not reports of client matters or predictions of an outcome.
1. A patent-drawing search
Record the precise figure relied on and explain its visible appearance. A technical purpose described elsewhere is not automatically a feature visible in that figure.
2. A folding product
Separate the appearance of the depicted state from assumptions about movement. If additional views are relied on, explain their relationship and evidential role.
3. An invalidity application
Submit a legible, dated source and a comparison that identifies the alleged earlier design. Avoid leaving the decision-maker to construct the case from an entire patent file.
4. A defence file
Check whether the applicant’s comparison adds features not shown by the selected evidence. Distinguish that issue from the separate assessment of overall impression.
Preparing a useful instruction
Provide the exact product version, the relevant filing or registration record, the intended territories and a dated chronology. For a dispute, add the complete demand and supporting images. The next step should answer a defined commercial question: whether to file, amend a launch plan, preserve evidence, negotiate or investigate a particular risk. Scope and fees should be agreed before substantive work is commissioned.
Lampenschirm T-40/25: Das ältere Design präzise bestimmen
Das Gericht wies am 1. Juli 2026 in T-40/25 die Klage zu einem Lampenschirmdesign ab. Im Mittelpunkt standen ältere Abbildungen aus Patentschriften. Unter den geprüften Umständen durften sachfremde Angaben aus Beschreibung und weiteren Figuren nicht in die herangezogenen älteren Gestaltungen hineingelesen werden.
Die vier oben erläuterten Praxisfälle zeigen typische Prüfschritte. Sie sind keine Berichte über konkrete Mandate. Für eine Einschätzung sind Produktdarstellungen, Schutzrechtsunterlagen, Zielmärkte und Fristen hilfreich. Eine Anfrage ist auf Deutsch möglich; sämtliche Formularfelder sind freiwillig.
Official source / Amtliche Quelle
Official guidance or decision / Amtlicher Hinweis oder Entscheidung. Accessed and reviewed: 13 November 2026.