In its decision of 20 October 2010 (Docket No. 21 O 7563/10), Regional.Court.Munich.20.10.2010 the Regional Court Munich had to decide on whether “urgency” is required for measures for securing evidence and, whether the request for measures for securing evidence must be rejected if the opponent is obliged to preserve the relevant documents, for instance pursuant to pharmaceutical or tax laws. The Court denied both questions and has therefore issued a decision which allows right-holders to effectively secure evidence.

What happens in Germany’s bifurcated patent litigation system, if – during pending infringements proceedings – the nullity court declares the patent partly invalid? The patentee can amend its infringement action accordingly. The infringement action is then based on the patent claim as amended by the nullity court, and not on the patent claim as initially…

The Appeal Court Karlsruhe has recently issued a judgement in a preliminary injunction proceeding. Plaintiff has sought to obtain a confirmation of the first instance’s judgement. Defendant had filed the appeal against the judgement by which he had been ordered to cease and desist from producing, offering and marketing the patent infringing devices after the…

Once again, the German Federal Supreme Court has underlined the primacy of the patent claim over the patent’s description. The technical problem to be solved by the invention is to be established by virtue of the patent claim only. In consequence, a broad patent claim must not be limited by a specific technical problem expressed…

Patent protection for technical products expires after 20 years. However, there is no rule without exception. In its recent decision “Femur-Teil”(judgement of 15 April 2010, I ZR 145/08), the German Federal Court granted protection against an (almost) identical copy of a femoral element for a hip joint endoprosthesis, although patent protection had already expired in…

In Grimme Landmaschinenfabrik GmbH v Scott [2010] EWCA Civ 1110 the English Court of Appeal stated clearly its support for judicial collaboration facilitating de facto harmonisation of patent law in Europe. The Court then interpreted the UK provisions on indirect/contributory infringement consistently with approaches taken in The Netherlands and Germany. The case in question concerned…

The court held that the plaintiff who is listed as proprietor of the patent in the patent register is allowed to claim both injunctive relief and damages as well as claims to rendering accounts and provision of information to prepare the damage claim for all infringing acts committed during the time of his/her enlistment, despite…

According to the so-called “Duesseldorfer Besichtigungspraxis” (Duesseldorf inspection practice), a patent owner who establishes a prevailing likelihood of infringement may secure evidence by inspection of the allegedly infringing device or method by a court-appointed, independent expert. The inspection order is granted in ex-parte proceedings. Contrary to other preliminary injunctions, the required urgency is generally presumed…