This case concerns the relationship between two co-owners of a patent and in particular the issue of whether and under what conditions one co-owner can claim compensation in respect of the use of the invention by the other co-owner. The FCJ held that an assessment of the potential claim of a co-owner for compensation for…

In this case the Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) allowed a compulsory licence under a patent for a pharmaceutical active ingredient for the first time ever. The Court held that a public interest in such a licence may still exist where it concerns only a small group of patients. In particular, the interest may be…

In this case the FCJ considered the question of whether one of the co-owners of an invention is individually entitled to file a patent application for that invention. The Court held that in general an application is not permissible if it is made only in the name and on behalf of that co-owner. In such…

In this case the FCJ considered the question of when the enforcement of a judgment in an infringement action should be suspended in light of a decision of the Federal Patent Court in a parallel nullity action concerning the same patent. The Court held that there is no reason for a suspension if the patent…

In this case the FCJ expanded on earlier case law regarding claim construction, in particular how a term used in the claim language should be interpreted in light of the specification and the entire set of claims. The Court held that the subject matter of the main claim can generally not be limited by a…

In this case the FCJ dealt with the prerequisites for equivalent infringement. In particular it gave further guidance in relation to the so-called “3rd Schneidmesser question” which concerns the parity of a variant with the patented solution. The FCJ held that the considerations of the skilled person leading to an assessment of the variant as…

The Federal Court of Justice held that claim construction is the core task of a court dealing with infringement and that this must be done independently from the claim construction as used by the FCJ in a previous nullity decision about that same patent. The Court explicitly stated that there is no legal or factual…

In this case the FCJ expanded on earlier case law regarding claim construction and in particular on the issue of whether a certain embodiment would fall within the scope of protection by way of equivalence if the specification in the patent described various options, but only incorporated one of those options into the claim wording….

The Federal Court of Justice held that claim construction has absolute priority before issues of invalidity, such as the inadmissible extension or issues of patentability of the subject matter, can be discussed. The Court also reiterated that the determination of the subject matter of a patent (the invention) cannot be abandoned with the mere reason…

The Court held that a certain means does not relate to an essential element of the invention just because it is used for a step in the method preceding the patented steps of the method. Even where this is necessary in order to apply the method, no contributory infringement of the patent can be established….