This case concerns the question of whether, and under what conditions, a supplier of infringing products who is located abroad can be held liable for infringement of the German patent for acts committed abroad. The FCJ held that the supplier may be liable if he was aware or should have been aware of the fact…

This case concerns the issue of the urgency required in order to justify a preliminary injunction for patent infringement. The CoA Düsseldorf had to deal with the question of whether the Petitioner may wait for the outcome of a pending invalidation action before filing a motion for a preliminary injunction. The CoA Düsseldorf confirmed that…

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….