In a globally networked economy, innovation is a central competitive factor. At the same time, the number of cases is increasing, in which third parties exploit intellectual property without permission, copy or imitate – often…
When does a patent infringement occur??
In Germany, patent infringement occurs under certain conditions. Here are the basic conditions: Existing patent: First, a valid patent must exist, which gives the owner certain exclusive rights to a…
Patent infringement: and now?
Patent infringement: and now? If you are a patent owner, It is forbidden for other people to make or offer your invention without your consent and you should defend yourself and your patent. Important is,…
Action for annulment against a patent
More than nine months have passed since the publication of the patent, which is to be contested and no opposition proceedings are pending, can be according to § 81 Abs. 2 PatG action for annulment at…
BGH judgment of 04.08.2020 – X ZR 40/18: Admissibility of the cross-appeal according to § 115 Abs. 2 Set 2 Patgan
The Federal Court of Justice has ruled in its judgment of 4. August 2020 (X ZR 40/18) resolved in patent nullity proceedings, Until when the patent holder can join the appeal of the invalidity plaintiff. In the matter…
Indirect incorporeal patent infringement
The Munich I Regional Court issued a judgment dated: 5. December 2019 (7 The 5314/18) decided, that software is also a “means” in the sense of indirect patent infringement according to § 10 be PatG…
OLG Dusseldorf, I-15 U 4/17: Urgency of the preliminary injunction in patent cases
The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court ruled in its judgment of 29. June 2017 (I-15 U 4/17 – “vacuum-assisted treatment system”) an injunction from a patent was lifted, because the applicant had waited too long.…
Wilkinson darf keine Rasierklingeneinheiten für Nassrasierer vertreiben, die auf den Nassrasierer “Gillette Mach 3” von Gillette passen (Patent infringement).
Die Rasierklingeneinheit des Nassrasieres "Gillette Mach" may not be imitated By judgment of 18. July 2017 (4O 66/17) has the 4a patent chamber of the District Court of Düsseldorf of Wilkinson Sword GmbH im…
Der gesetzliche Vertreter einer Gesellschaft, die ein patentverletzendes Erzeugnis herstellt, ist dem Verletzten zum Schadensersatz verpflichtet, wenn er die ihm möglichen und zumutbaren Maßnahmen unterlässt, die Geschäftstätigkeit des Unternehmens so einzurichten und zu steuern, dass hierdurch keine technischen Schutzrechte Dritter verletzt werden
a) Ein Unternehmen, das ein Produkt, dessen Vertrieb für einen bestimmten Verwendungszweck nur unter bestimmten, dem Schutz der Gesundheit dienenden Voraussetzungen rechtlich zulässig ist, offers for this purpose or in…
Patentnichtigkeit des Apple-Patents betreffend die Entsperrung durch Wischen von Motorola durchgesetzt
The Federal Court of Justice has ruled in its judgment of 25. August 2015 (X ZR 110/13 – “Unlock image”) the annulment of the German part of the European patent 1 964 022 bestätigt. The patent was about that…
Explains Nespresso patent for a device for extracting a cartridge and corresponding coffee machines void
The dispute over the successful Nespresso machines, the capsules (whether original or not) and the related patents by Nestle go unchanged. In addition to the nullity proceedings, there are also some patent infringement proceedings…
Explains Supplementary protection certificate for mini-pill "Cerazette" void
The Federal Patent Court ruled in its judgment of 6. More 2014 (3 NI 21/12) The SPC DE 199 75 011 for the active ingredient desogestrel – active ingredient under the brand “Cerazette”…
IPCOM fails before LG Mannheim against APPLE with its partial claim over a billion damages for patent infringement of a European patent EP 1 841 268
IPCOM ./. Apple (2 The 53/12 and 2 The 95/13) On 11. February 2014 was before the District Court of Mannheim before 2. employees…
BGH X ZR 130/12 – Kabelschloss: Infringer's profit and visibility of the invention for customers
The Federal Court of Justice has decided by decision of 3. September 2013 (X ZR 130/12 – „Kabelschloss“) a non-admission complaint was rejected and clarified, like the share of the infringer's profits to be released in the event of a patent infringement…
Nullity dispute uniform even when multiple plaintiffs, applicable within the scope of the same attack – 20 to 30 Million EUR in the specific case
The Federal Court of Justice has decided by decision of 27. August 2013 (X ZR 83/10 – “Value in dispute II”) decided, that the amount in dispute in a patent nullity action is generally not divided if there are several plaintiffs. Guiding principle will…
BGH X ZB 15/12 – Patentstreitsache II: A patent attorney's fee claim is not simply a patent dispute
The Federal Court of Justice has decided by decision of 20. March 2013 (X ZB 15/12 – „Patentstreitsache II“) decided, when the fee claim of a right- or patent attorney as a patent dispute within the meaning of Section 143…
Competition capsules for Nespresso coffee machines 0,29 Cent (instead 0,39 Cent) is no patent infringement, because the capsules are not covered by patent protection
According to the press release of the OLG Dusseldorf shown below the competition capsules for Nespresso machines are for 0,29 Cent (instead 0,39 Cent) no patent infringement, because the capsules are not covered by patent protection and…
BGH X ZR 33/10 – MPEG-2 video signal encoding: Product protection for encoded video data
The Federal Court of Justice has ruled in its judgment of 21. August 2012 (X ZR 33/10 – “MPEG-2 video signal encoding”) decided, that a sequence of coded video data generated using a patented process is considered a direct product of the process in accordance with §…
BGH X ZR 75/08 – Tire sealant: Novelty and unauthorized extension
The Federal Court of Justice (X. civil senate) has with judgment of 12. July 2011 (AZ. X ZR 75/08 – Tire sealant) the declaration of invalidity of the European patent 0 753 420 bestätigt. The focus is on the…
Licensee has independent right of action: Urteil BGH X ZR 86/10 from 5. April 2011 – RCA plug
The Federal Court of Justice (X. civil senate) has with judgment of 5. April 2011 (AZ. X ZR 86/10 – RCA plug) decided, that a patent holder has his own claims against you despite the granting of an exclusive license…