by Bernward Zollner The German law on indirect patent infringement is rather strict. Particular means which are being supplied to third parties relate to an essential element of the in-vention if they are mentioned in the patent claim. In a decision from May 2004 called “Flügelradzähler” the Bundesgerichtshof has stated that the mere exist-ence of…
by Miriam Büttner As promised by my colleague, Rüdiger Pansch (please see his post on “Munich Appellate Court on Making vs. Repair” dated 28 October 2011 and the other earlier Blogs cited therein) we are keeping you updated on what is going on at the IBC-front. The German Federal Supreme Court rendered a judgment on…
by Stefan Lieck In the judgement dated 12/01/2012 (file no. I ZB 43/11), the Federal Supreme Court decided on the question as to whether an administrative fine is to be imposed on the managing director of a limited liability company [GmbH] if previously, both the GmbH as well as its managing director were ordered, upon…
by Bernward Zollner Earlier this year the Ministry of Justice has submitted a bill which intends to grant a better protection to license agreements in case the licensor has to file a motion for the commencement of insolvency proceedings. According to the current statute the liquidator (insolvency administrator) has the right to terminate a license…
By Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen Under paragraph 103 of the German Insolvency Act, an insolvency practitioner has the right to choose whether or not to honour existing contracts of the insolvent company. Does this right also apply for any patent licences granted by the insolvent company? The Regional Court Munich has ruled in a case in…
In my blog of 10 June 2011 I had reported about the decision by the Landgericht Duesseldorf “Pramipexol” (4a O 277/10) where the Court of first Instance had granted a PI based on an anonymous confirmation by a research institute. This decision has been reversed by the Court of Appeals (I-2 U 22/11). The Court…
by Stephan Lieck The Düsseldorf Regional Court had to decide whether it is misleading under competition law that the former proprietor of a patent advertises with the fact that there is patent protection for a product (wrongful representation of an article as patent-ed/arrogation of patent), although the patent had expired at the time of arrogation…
by Miriam Büttner In a recent decision of 15 September 2011 (ref. no. 4b O 99/11) the District Court of Düsseldorf (LG Düsseldorf) found that a non-final decision of the utility model cancel-lation division of the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO), with which the utility model was declared (partially) invalid, is not a sufficient…
Part 1 of the drama with the title “You Shall not Lie” is covered by a previous post.Part 2 has been briefly summarized two weeks ago by Miriam. It appeared to me that the potential consequences of this decision justify a further post on this matter. Or could you imagine to go to jail just…
by Miriam Büttner This is a follow-up to the article of my colleague, Eike Schaper, of 17 August 2010 in which he refers to a ruling of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal concerning the value in patent infringement litigation (“You shall not lie!” – Cost Risk in Patent Proceedings). Court fees are fixed on the…
