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…
This decision deals with the scope of the obligation of a plaintiff to concentrate actions in one case if these are directed against the same defendant regarding the same infringing device, but based on different patents and to what extent the plaintiff may choose to use a patent at a later stage. A later action…
In case of actual or potential discrepancies between claim language and the patent description which might allow a broader interpretation the Supreme Court confirms that the claim may not be interpreted to cover all options of the broader description if certain elements of the description have not been reflected in the claim language. Furthermore, such…
In a recent decision of 16 June 2011 the German Bundesgerichtshof has cancelled a decision of the German Bundespatentgericht because the Bundespatentgericht had not sufficiently respected the (constitutional) right of one of the parties to a fair hear-ing (“Verletzung des rechtlichen Gehörs”). At the Bundespatentgericht the parties had discussed the validity of a German utility…
The Court of Appeal discusses and builds on its previous case law on patentability regarding the issue of whether the subject matter is considered a technical invention. The Court emphasizes that it is sufficient if only part of the patented teaching concerns a technical problem. However, as the next step it has to be determined…
by Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen In my post of 28 April 2011, I reported that the Düsseldorf Appellate Court (Oberlan-desgericht) does not require urgency for inspection orders, whereas urgency is re-quired for preliminary cease and desist orders. Urgency means that the patentee is compelled to apply for an interim injunction in due time (approx. 1 month)…
In this blog, we reported earlier about a new nullity action initiated in 2010 against the German supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for enantiomeric escitalopram and the judgment of the German Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht – BPatG) in favor of the validity of the SPC. Meanwhile, the BPatG issued the written grounds for its decision.
This blog relates to the decision “Lungenfunktionsmessgerät” (lung function analyser) by the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Duesseldorf (judgement of 24 February 2011, docket no. I-2 U 122/09). The court had to deal with the differentiation between direct and indirect patent infringement. The patent in suit, EP 0 606 351, provided for an apparatus for…
The Court of Appeal Duesseldorf held that, provided that the alleged infringer proves a legitimate interest in confidentiality, the presentation of the expert opinion to the patentee itself depends on whether the inspection confirms infringement. If the expert opinion confirms infringement, and if the court has no expertise in the relevant technical field, it may…
The Federal Court of Justice (FCJ) in Germany has held in its recent “Dentalgerätesatz” decision that claim 1 of EP 892 625 is novel since it claimed a new functional adaptation of otherwise known elements to serve a certain purpose. In doing so, the FCJ reversed the first-instance decision of the Federal Patent Court.
