{"Signatur": "CH_BGE_005", "Spider": "CH_BGE", "Sprache": "de", "Datum": "2011-12-23", "HTML": {"Datei": "CH_BGE/CH_BGE_005_BGE-138-III-111_2011-12-23.html", "URL": "https://search.bger.ch/ext/eurospider/live/de/php/clir/http/index.php?lang=de&type=highlight_simple_query&page=1&from_date=&to_date=&from_year=2011&to_year=2011&sort=relevance&insertion_date=&from_date_push=&top_subcollection_clir=bge&query_words=&part=all&de_fr=&de_it=&fr_de=&fr_it=&it_de=&it_fr=&orig=&translation=&rank=3&highlight_docid=atf%3A%2F%2F138-III-111%3Ade&number_of_ranks=265&azaclir=clir", "Checksum": "f066c9a85d2db019b0d339cd03969559"}, "Scrapedate": "2025-06-16", "Num": ["BGE 138 III 111", "4A_391/2011"], "Kopfzeile": [{"Sprachen": ["de"], "Text": "Bundesgericht (BGE) Band III 23.12.2011 BGE 138 III 111 (4A_391/2011)"}, {"Sprachen": ["fr"], "Text": "Tribunal f\u00e9d\u00e9ral (ATF) Volume III 23.12.2011 BGE 138 III 111 (4A_391/2011)"}, {"Sprachen": ["it"], "Text": "Tribunale federale (DTF) Volume III 23.12.2011 BGE 138 III 111 (4A_391/2011)"}], "Meta": [{"Sprachen": ["de"], "Text": "Eidgenossenschaft Bundesgericht (BGE) Band III"}, {"Sprachen": ["fr"], "Text": "Conf\u00e9deration Tribunal f\u00e9d\u00e9ral (ATF) Volume III"}, {"Sprachen": ["it"], "Text": "Confederazione Tribunale federale (DTF) Volume III"}, {"Sprachen": ["de", "fr", "it"], "Text": "I. zivilrechtlichen Abteilung"}], "Abstract": [{"Sprachen": ["de"], "Text": "Regeste\n<br>Art. 1 Abs. 2 PatG; Nichtnaheliegen bzw. erfinderische T\u00e4tigkeit. Grunds\u00e4tze der Beurteilung des Erfinderischen (E. 2.1). \"Aufgabe-L\u00f6sungs- Ansatz\" als eine der m\u00f6glichen Vorgehensweisen zur Beurteilung des Nichtnaheliegens (E. 2.2). Unterschied zwischen (nicht erfinderischer) Aggregation und (erfinderischer) Kombination von Merkmalen; Beurteilung des Erfinderischen im konkreten Fall (E. 2.3 und 2.4)."}, {"Sprachen": ["fr"], "Text": "Regeste\n<br>Art. 1 al. 2 LBI; non-\u00e9vidence ou activit\u00e9 inventive. Crit\u00e8res d'appr\u00e9ciation de l'activit\u00e9 inventive (consid. 2.1). L'approche \"probl\u00e8me-solution\" est une des m\u00e9thodes envisageables pour appr\u00e9cier la non- \u00e9vidence (consid. 2.2). Distinction entre agr\u00e9gation (activit\u00e9 non inventive) et combinaison (activit\u00e9 inventive) de caract\u00e9ristiques; appr\u00e9ciation de l'activit\u00e9 inventive dans le cas d'esp\u00e8ce (consid. 2.3 et 2.4)."}, {"Sprachen": ["it"], "Text": "Regesto\n<br>Art. 1 cpv. 2 LBI; non evidenza, rispettivamente attivit\u00e0 inventiva. Principi per giudicare l'attivit\u00e0 inventiva (consid. 2.1). L'approccio \"problema-soluzione\" quale possibilit\u00e0 per giudicare la non evidenza (consid. 2.2). Differenza fra l'aggregazione (non inventiva) e la combinazione (inventiva) di caratteristiche; apprezzamento dell'attivit\u00e0 inventiva nel caso concreto (consid. 2.3 e 2.4)."}], "ScrapyJob": "446973/47/2482", "Zeit UTC": "16.06.2025 03:45:23", "Checksum": "1ba8bcd7b9d242c2b3b04170ee006eb1"}