Skip to content

Kluwer Patent Blog

Kluwer Patent Blog
  • Facebook
  • X
  • LinkedIn
  • YouTube
(Indirect) infringement, Account of profits, Damages, Germany, Injunction

You Shall Not Lie! – Cost Risk in Patent Proceedings

Eike Schaper/August 17, 2010

The Duesseldorf Court of Appeal referred in a recent decision to the commandment “You shall not lie!” – with severe consequences as to the cost risk of patent proceedings (court order of 15 April 2010 – ref. I-2 W 10/10; InstGE 12, 107 – Du sollst nicht lügen!).

Under German law, the losing party has to bear the court fees as well as the statutory attorney fees of the winning party. Both fees are calculated according to a fee scale based on the value in dispute. The value in dispute is set by the court – usually in accordance with the plaintiff’s suggestion.

When filing its patent infringement action with the Duesseldorf District Court, the patentee had suggested a value in dispute of EUR 200,000. The alleged infringer did not object (given the uncertain outcome of the proceedings), and the court set the value in dispute accordingly. After the patent infringement action was finally rejected by the Court of Appeal, the attorneys of the defendant filed a complaint, arguing that the value in dispute was in fact EUR 30 million – which would trigger much higher statutory attorney fees.

The Duesseldorf Court of Appeal confirmed that such a motion may be filed within six months after final judgement, even if the relevant facts are submitted after the court has rendered its final decision. The value in dispute is set at the free discretion of the court, taking into account the objective economic interest of the plaintiff. The value of an injunction for patent infringement corresponds therefore with the disadvantages the patentee suffers if the patent infringement continues. An indication for the value of an injunction can be the license fee which would be payable during the remaining lifetime of the patent(s) in dispute. If the patentee further claims damages and detailed account for infringements incurred in the past, this amount must also be estimated by the court and added to the value in dispute.

In application of these principles, the court estimated the applicable license fees and deduced after detailed calculation that the value in dispute must be increased from EUR 200,000 to EUR 2,050,000. As consequence, the court fees payable by the losing party increased by the factor five (from approx. EUR 10,000 in two instances to over EUR 50,000). The statutory attorney fees increased similarly.

It does not matter whether the patentee stated the lower value in dispute negligently or intentionally in order to “save” court fees (given the uncertain outcome of the proceedings). In both cases there are no legitimate expectations to be protected at the expense of the state which would receive less court fees than entitled. The Duesseldorf Court of Appeal reminded the parties therefore that they shall not lie with respect to the real value in dispute. Also attorneys should remember that it pays off to stay with the truth.


________________________

To make sure you do not miss out on regular updates from the Kluwer Patent Blog, please subscribe here.


Kluwer Arbitration
This page as PDF
Like? Share with your friends.FacebookTwitterLinkedInEmail

Post navigation

Next Article

Unified patent litigation system incompatible with EU treaties – AG opinion

Brian Cordery (Bristows)/August 24, 2010

Previous Article

UK: Occlutech v. AGA, Court of Appeal Civil Division, 22 June 2010

Sam Tuxford/August 16, 2010
Wolters Kluwer

Go to posts on

(Compulsory) license (Cross-border) jurisdiction (Indirect) infringement Amendments Biologics Brexit Case Law Chemical Engineering Damages Denmark Enforcement EPC EPO EPO Decision Equivalents European Union Exceptions to patentability Extent of Protection France FRAND Germany Infringement Injunction Inventive step Italy Litigation Netherlands Novelty Opposition Patents Pharma Pharmaceutical patent Procedure Revocation Scope of protection SEP Spain SPC Sufficiency of disclosure Switzerland Unitary Patent United Kingdom United States of America UPC Validity
VAEPC-2024-edVissers Annotated European Patent Convention 2024 EditionKaisa Suominen, Nina Ferara, Peter de Lange, Andrew Rudge€ 105
Annotated-PCTAnnotated PCTMalte Köllner€ 160
AI-GovernanceAI Governance and Liability in Europe: A Primer Ceyhun Necati Pehlivan, Nikolaus Forgó, Peggy Valcke€ 150

Number 3 in Top 10 Pharma Patent Blogs To Follow in 2022!

Pharma Patent Blogs

Blog Contributors

  • Brian Cordery
    Bristows
  • Rik Lambers
    Brinkhof
  • Rachel Mumby
    Bristows
  • Daniela Ampollini
    Trevisan & Cuonzo
  • Thorsten Bausch
    Hoffmann Eitle
  • Enrico Bonadio
    City, University of London
  • John Collins
    Clayton Utz
  • Matthieu Dhenne
    Dhenne Avocats
  • Simon Holzer
    MLL Legal Ltd.
  • Adam Lacy
    Hoffmann Eitle
  • Vaishali Mittal
    Anand and Anand
  • Miquel Montañá
    Clifford Chance
  • Roberto Rodrigues Pinho
    RNA Law
  • Alexa von Uexküll
    Vossius & Partner
  • Anders Valentin
    Bugge Valentin

Kluwer IP Law News Alert

Stay informed on Intellectual Property law & developments

Search Posts

RSS feeds

Summary Feed Article Feed

Related Sites

  • Kluwer IP Law
  • Kluwer Copyright Blog
  • Kluwer Trademark Blog
  • Regulating for Globalization Blog
  • Author Portal
Kluwer Logo

About us

  • About Kluwer Patent Blog
  • Kluwer IP Law
  • Kluwer Law International
  • E-store
  • Authors

Legal policy

  • User Agreement and Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy & Guidelines
  • Privacy Policy and Use of Cookies

Contact

  • General Information
Back to top