DE102019008124A1 - Preservation of evidence in the context of an accident escape and theft - Google Patents

Abstract

Preservation of evidence in the context of an accident escape and theft is the name of the invention. The abridged version of the application relates to a system for securing evidence in the context of an escape from an accident and / or theft of motor vehicles in the broader sense the injured party can enforce evidence or clues to pursue his claims against a damaging party or against a statutory motor vehicle liability insurance. Based on the image files to be produced in the 360 ° area, the problem is technically solved to obtain sufficient clues for the damaging party or the damaging event. The main possible use is in passenger vehicles and buses, but alternatively also in trucks, but also in two-wheeled motor vehicles.

Description

1) Brief description

The invention relates to the preservation of evidence and investigative aid in the context of an accident escape in the event of damage to motor vehicles (in other words: all motorized vehicles), in the event of personal injury, but also in the event of theft.

2) description

The system consists of an arrangement of various interconnected assemblies which, when evidence is preserved, records a suitable space around the vehicle to be protected (360 ° - according to a fictitious sphere) by video. For this purpose, mini cameras are installed on (also above and below) and in the vehicle in such a way that a gap-free area around, below and above the vehicle (360 °) is recorded by video. The data are stored centrally in the vehicle (optionally: also externally) in a data carrier that protects against heat and damage (using ceramic and / or metal alloy).

The sensors are activated visually by means of a variably adjustable program (e.g. from 10 mm, as soon as the sensor and / or program recognize the risk of damage or theft) and in parallel also haptically by means of a variably adjustable pressure sensor (e.g. in the event of the slightest vibration in the event of damage / scratches using Key or screwdriver / nail in the paint).

In the event of damage, be it in the event of an accident or theft, the person causing the damage can i. w.S. to be determined. For example, this can even be the license plate of the vehicle involved in the accident, so that the opposing motor vehicle liability insurance and the owner can be determined by means of the Deutscher Büro Grüne Karte eV.

For a complete and evidential investigation, mini cameras and sensors must also be installed on the underbody of the vehicle, so that sufficient image files are created for the determination of the damaging event and the damaging party even in the event of the vehicle overturning or tilting sideways.

The pressure sensors and / or visual sensors are also activated in the event of theft i. w.S., i.e. theft of the entire vehicle but also when the vehicle is broken into or, for example, "only" something from the vehicle interior is penetrated into the monitored room by reaching through an open window or, in the case of the convertible, through the open roof.

Compliance with and usability of the evidence obtained in this way takes place in accordance with the case law of the BGH (judgment of May 15, 2018, AZ BGH: VI ZR 233/17), as there is a legitimate interest in the preservation of evidence.

1. Summary

The claim comprises a method for preserving evidence and thus for the possibility of determining a damaging party or a damaging event by means of image files to be produced automatically in the variable risk area using mini cameras and sensors in the 360 ° area - according to a fictional sphere - of the vehicle to be secured and protected, including the Heat and damage secured data storage.

2) State of the art

There are a number of alarm systems that i. w.S. protect against damage or theft with a deterrent effect (alarm tone), but do not secure any evidence. A system by means of which evidence is secured and so that the damaging party or the damaging event can be identified and civil law claims enforced does not exist to this extent. According to information on www.lans-online.de - not verified here - 114 escapes per day with criminal consequences occurred in 2000. The number will certainly be much higher. Assuming a - very reduced - average damage in the amount of € 1,000.00, this means annual (fictitious) damage of over 41 million euros (114 × 365 × € 1,000.00). By means of the invention, the determination of injuries i. w.S. and / or the damaging event (be it an escape from an accident or theft). The solidarity community of the policyholders is relieved within the framework of the insurance contract, since the fully comprehensive insurance, but also the partially comprehensive insurance, can realize claims for damages much better. This also affects the policyholder himself economically, who usually remains seated on his deductible if the perpetrator is not identified.

Publication: 10 2013 010 194.8

This concerns the earlier patent application of the undersigned / inventor. The appeal was rejected by decision of the Federal Patent Court of July 10, 2019 (AZ: 20 W (pat) 20/17). The full decision of the Federal Patent Court was received on October 22nd, 2019, so that the legal status remains until November 22nd, 2019.

• „Die Neuheit kann nur verneint werden, wenn einer einzigen Entgegenhaltung sämtliche Merkmale des Patentanspruchs zu entnehmen sind.“ (zitiert nach ipwiki.de § 3 (1) S. 1 PatG, dort Rdnr. 2: ständige Rechtsprechung des BHG z. B. BGH Urteil vom 03.02.2015, AZ: X ZR 76 / 13).

The inadmissible extension of the patent application as well as the lack of novelty / inventive step were criticized in the granting procedure according to the notice of the German Patent and Trademark Office of March 22, 2017. That will be remedied here.

• "The novelty can only be denied if all features of the patent claim can be found in a single citation." (Quoted from ipwiki.de § 3 (1) sentence 1 PatG, there No. 2: constant case law of the BHG e.g. BGH judgment of February 3, 2015, AZ: X ZR 76/13).

The original registration concerned continuous video surveillance which would lead to GDPR violations. The German Patent and Trademark Office's notice of March 22, 2017 also criticized the lack of design of the data carrier. This was described with protection against heat and damage in the old process and has now been specified to the effect that this protection against heat and damage takes place by means of ceramic and / or metal alloys.

In the appeal proceedings before the Federal Patent Court, the inadmissible extension of the patent application was also criticized and, for the rest, the patent application was not considered patentable due to a lack of novelty and inventive step. This is now remedied by the fact that the patent application is made again and is specified in the context of the patent application for the sensors: pressure sensors and visual sensors.

The novelty is also achieved by the fact that mini cameras and sensors are expressly added to the underbody of the vehicle (which are necessary in the event of a rollover or lateral tipping).

Publication: DE 10 2010 053 147 A1 (Daimler AG)

In this patent application it is described (0009) that the image files are stored securely. However, there is no concrete specification of a heat-resistant and damage-resistant data storage medium. It is also called (0017) a surround view system, as well as a (0030) detection range of 360 °. However, not a single mini camera on the underbody of the vehicle can be seen from the description and the drawing. Rather, the description and the drawing are to be interpreted in such a way that only a hemisphere is meant.

Publication: WO 02/073544 A1 (Fritsch Uwe)

In this respect, all-round monitoring and activation when the vehicle is locked, but only black and white cameras are mentioned. This does not have to be taken into account at all, since, as evidenced by the description and the patent claims in this document, no mini cameras are attached to the underbody and thus the all-round monitoring does not take place at 360 ° (according to a fictitious sphere). Furthermore, nothing is carried out on the data carrier which has been specially secured against heat and damage.

Publication: WO 02/34583 A1 (Schneider Timo and Röber Hendrik)

• „Öffentliche Ordnung i. S. des § 2 Abs. 1 ... ist gleichzusetzen mit den tragenden Grundsätzen der Rechtsordnung .....“ (Mes Peter im Komm. zum PatG und GebrMG; 4. Auflage; § 2 Rdnr. 7).

Such a citation does not preclude the granting of a patent. A shock- and heat-protected recording device (which is not synonymous with a memory) is mentioned there, but permanent recording takes place. However, this is the case of the patenting prohibition for immoral inventions according to § 2 (1) PatG. A permanent recording violates the GDPR and thus against public order. Public order is determined as follows:

• "Public order i. S. of § 2 Abs. 1 ... is to be equated with the basic principles of the legal system ..... "(Mes Peter in the Komm. Zum PatG and GebrMG; 4th edition; § 2 marginal number 7).

Furthermore, it would also be a violation of good morals.

The GDPR is based on Art. 2 Para. 1 GG i. In conjunction with Article 1, Paragraph 1 of the Basic Law, namely informational self-determination. There must always be a legitimate interest in the recording and utilization of image files, as is the case with the automatic activation of the pressure sensors and / or visual sensors in the case of preserving evidence. A permanent recording and thus immoral finding of the earth would mean, for example: All-round monitoring of a vehicle parked on the bank of a quarry pond.

Publication: DE 198 24 855 A1 (Prof. Dr. Jörns)

The document cited in the registration process, as stated above, is irrelevant. It is a process with only one camera, sensors in the crumple zone, in the steering wheel lock and in the door lock. The aim of the procedure is, inter alia. Other vehicles driving in violation of the traffic regulations can be picked up. In this respect, the inventor allows himself sovereign power in road traffic, which is why there is also a violation of Section 2 (I) PatG here.

Claims (1)

Procedure for the preservation of evidence and determination of a damaging party or a damaging event by means of automatically in the variable Image files produced at risk in the area of risk using mini cameras and censors in the 360 ° area, which is characterized by the fact that images are automatically created and saved to preserve evidence for any property damage caused by third parties.