This is to report on a new tendency in the jurisdiction of the Federal Patent Court to use the prerequisite of enabling disclosure (Art. 83 EPC) as an unpredictable rule of reason for patentability. Based on a Federal Supreme Court decision of 2001 (“Taxol”), it had been established case law in Germany that a patentee…
by Max v. Rospatt In a recent decision the Landgericht Duesseldorf (4a O 277/10 – Pramipexol) issued a preliminary injunction against a generic company before the generic was listed in one of the usual publications (Rote Liste, Lauer Taxe etc.). Plaintiff asserted infringing marketing activities solely based on information obtained from an independent market research…
Imagine: Wouldn’t it be fantastic to have one single patent which you could apply for at the WPO, the World Patent Office? A World Patent, which would be valid worldwide and which could be enforced in each single country of the world with worldwide effect? Decisions of the national local chambers of the World Patent…
by Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen In their posts of 21 Oct. 2010 and 28 Jan. 2011, Hetti Hilge and Max v. Rospatt reported a difference of opinion between German courts on the question of whether or not there is a requirement of “urgency” in cases of ex-parte inspection orders following the so-called “Düsseldorfer Besichtigungspraxis” (Düsseldorf inspection…
Germany is still busy handling its first big wave of patent troll litigation. At this stage it seems that some trolls may have underestimated the power of bulk defence. In a case concerning mobile telecommunication, a troll picked the last member of the distribution chain, a network provider, as defendant in patent infringement proceedings. As…
In Germany it is well established case law that in normal PI cases “urgency” is a requirement which is not fulfilled if plaintiff waits too long before initiating court proceedings (although the standards for “waiting too long” vary largely between the different courts). In her post of 26 January Anja Petersen-Padberg reported about a decision…
Do we need a Community Patent? Do we need a European Patent Litigation System? Or does the current fragmented system have a hidden wisdom behind it? Judge for yourself!
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…
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…
