R0758/2025-3

• ›Applicant (appellant) argued the contested RCD for ring lock washers (Schrauben Unterlagscheiben) lacked novelty and individual character over prior designs D1–D4 from the holder's own website (archived 3 February 2011); he contended the radial ribbing was solely technically dictated under Art. 8(1) and the outer ring was the only meaningful design feature; he also argued the product is a component part of a complex product under Art. 4(2).
• ›Holder (respondent) argued the invalidity division correctly upheld novelty and individual character; new evidence WIP-05 to WIP-08 (submitted for the first time on appeal) should be excluded as late; multiple design differences — notch orientation, ring chamfer profile, proportions, and color — collectively produce a different overall impression; the product is not a component part of a complex product.
• ›The Board admitted WIP-05 to WIP-08 as late submissions relevant to challenging the first-instance finding on notch orientation, but rejected D5 and D6 from WIP-08 as inadmissible new prior designs beyond the scope of the invalidity application; it confirmed the contested RCD does not constitute a component part of a complex product under Art. 4(2), since the applicant did not show that the ring washer is essential to the intended use of any specific complex product.
• ›Comparing D1–D4 individually against the contested RCD, the Board found that differences in notch arrangement (radial vs. angled), notch protrusion beyond the ring edge, ring chamfer, and color collectively create a clearly different overall impression for the informed user; the patent documents WIP-05 to WIP-08 failed to establish that the radial notch arrangement was solely technically dictated under Art. 8(1); the proportions argument was also rejected as the diameter is screw-dependent and not an independent design feature.
• ›The Board dismissed the appeal and upheld the invalidity division's rejection of the invalidity application; the applicant was ordered to bear the holder's costs for both the invalidity and appeal proceedings.

• ChairG. Humphreys Bacon
• RapporteurE. Fink
• MemberC. Bartos
• RegistrarK. Zajfert

Ranked by shared Locarno class + shared legal grounds + matching outcome. Click a case to view full detail.