• Skip to main content
  • Skip to primary sidebar
  • Skip to footer
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Contact form
Patentanwaltskanzlei

Patentanwaltskanzlei

  • Deutsch

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Instagram
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email
MENUMENU
  • Services
    • Advice On Protective IP Rights
    • Patent Application /TM Registration
    • Enforcement Of IP Rights
    • Defence Against IP Rights Enforcement
    • Costs
  • Company
    • Fields of Law
      • Patent Law
      • Utility Model Law
      • Employees‘ Inventions
      • Trademark Law
      • Design Law
      • Trademark and Product Piracy
      • Expert Opinions
    • Our Law Firm
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Walter Benjamin Feldheim
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Action against a patent already expired

26. February 2021

Particularly in the case of patents in mobile communications, nullity actions against a patent already expired occur time and again. In its leading decision ‘ signal transmission ‘, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) specified when there is a legitimate interest in legal protection.

erloschenes Patent Signalübertragung

The case before the Federal Supreme Court ‘Signal Transmission System’ concerned the patent ‘REDUCED COMPLEXITY SIGNAL TRANSMISSION SYSTEM’ – filed in January 1997 (DE 697 32 746.9), with priority priority from European application EP 96200370 of 15 February 1996. This patent of Philipps (Netherlands) concerns a system consisting of a transmitter and a receiver for transmitting an input signal based on an acoustic signal, such as converted human speech.

Considering the worldwide use of smartphones, computers, tablets, etc., all of which more or less use such technology, one can see the value that is or was behind this patent. In short, this invention is found in every Android-powered device, among others.

Nullity action against this patent on signal transmission

A nullity action was – unsurprisingly – brought against the patent in its entirety, on the grounds of alleged lack of patentability. This is quite a common procedure, especially for patents in mobile communications.

In turn, patent owner Philipps asserted a patent infringement against the applicant on the basis of patent claim 7 (in short: an encoder with a two-stage search with a coarser and a finer grid).

At the end of 2017, the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) ruled in this infringement action that the patent in suit was invalidated to the extent of claims 7 and 8 (6 Ni 32/16 (EP)) – by then the patent in suit was already expired.

In the course of the appeal proceedings, Philipps (the defendant) had then waived the assertion of rights from the patent in suit with the declaration that it would not base the infringement action on further patent claims; as a result, the plaintiffs and defendant amicably dropped parts of the action.

Need for legal protection against an already expired patent

Nevertheless, the applicant (Google is owner of the Android system since 2005) asserted a need for legal protection against the Philipps patent. It was a matter of its need for legal protection to attack the patent in suit in its entirety in order to protect the purchasers of its Android operating system, despite the expiry of the term of protection and the limitation of the claims asserted in the infringement actions already filed to patent claim 7.

The BGH therefore heard the case on whether patent claim 7 was rightly declared invalid – and whether an action for nullity can be brought or continued at all against a patent that has already lapsed.

On the question of the invalidity of patent claim 7, the BGH confirmed the decision of the BPatG: the two-step search described in patent claim 7 was a general and versatile means for a person skilled in the art. Patent claim 7 was not based on inventive step, the Federal Court of Justice ruled. The same also applied to patent claims 1, 5, 9 and 10, insofar as these claims also referred to the described two-step search, the court added.

Legitimate interest in legal protection – after expiry of the term of protection

Important in this respect is the decision of the Federal Supreme Court on a legitimate interest in legal protection after the expiry of the term of protection of a patent, which the court formulated as a guiding principle:

“The interest in legal protection required for a patent revocation action after the expiry of the term of protection of a patent is to be denied only if a claim based on the IP right is seriously no longer a possibility”.

In positive terms, this means that it is possible to bring an action for revocation against a patent already expired even after the expiry of the term of protection if there is a fear that one might still be exposed to claims for past acts. The question of whether one’s own interest in legal protection exists should not be assessed according to overly strict standards, the German BGH explained. If an action for annulment is to serve as a preventive defence against claims, it is not decisive whether these have already been asserted or even announced.

In the present case, the defendant Philipps had already filed infringement actions on the basis of patent claims 7 and 8; moreover, the subject-matter of the other claims differed only slightly from the subject-matter of these two claims, the BGH stated. Therefore, the plaintiff could not be expected to accept the uncertainty based on the fact that it had a legitimate interest in legal protection – even against a patent already expired.

According to case law, a legitimate interest in legal protection must be examined separately, at least for coordinated patent claims. In the case of independent claims, the interest in a declaration of invalidity of one claim does not necessarily justify the interest in a declaration of invalidity of another claim.

Filing a patent application or defending a patent?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise in patent law as well as in the entire field of intellectual property and are authorised to represent you before any office and before any court – in Germany and also internationally.
Please feel free to contact us if you are interested.

 

Sources: 

Judgement of BGH ‘Signalübertragungssystem’, X ZR 90/18

Image:

geralt | pixabay | CCO License

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconaction for annulment against lapsed patent,  Android,  Android System,  BGH signal transmission system,  Google,  Guiding sentence decision,  interest in legal protection,  lapsed patent,  leading principle,  patent already expired,  Philipps,  signal transmission,  signal transmission system

Reader Interactions

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Primary Sidebar

More articles about: Patent Law

All articles

Blog Menu

  • Design Law
  • Healthcare & Lifesciences
  • International Intellectual Property
  • Licenses
  • News from our law firm
  • Overall
  • Patent Law
  • Product- and Trademark piracy
  • Trademark Law

Recent Posts

  • What is the public allowed to know? 3. June 2024
  • BPatG: Patent claim of cancer drug on active substance as salt 7. March 2022
  • Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022 4. March 2022
  • CODE-X vs. Cody’s: Likelihood of confusion in drinks? 25. February 2022

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Das könnte Sie auch interessieren:

4. March 2022
Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

Grant for European IP Protection: SME Fund 2022

22. February 2022
PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

PAP is in force: UPC possible in 2022

8. February 2022
Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

Germany: Value in dispute and costs in proceedings

3. February 2022
PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

PCT application – does the principle of joint applicants apply?

1. February 2022
Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

Proof of patent infringement by whistleblower

19. January 2022
Computer Data identification declared invalid

Computer Data identification declared invalid

Contact us or request a call back

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]
Request a call back

Footer

Contact

Hanauer Landstrasse 287
D – 60314 Frankfurt am Main
Deutschland
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Office Hours
Moday – Friday:   08:00-18:00

Fields of Law

  • Patent Law
  • Utility Model Law
  • Employees’ Inventions
  • Trademark Law
  • Design Law
  • Trademark and Product Piracy
  • Expert Opinions
  • Costs

Law Firm

  • Request non-binding call back
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

Newsletter INT

© Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG

Contact Form

 

Give us a call, send us an email or fill out the contact form.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf INT

Please note: If we deal specifically with your individual case, this is what is known as an initial consultation. In accordance with Section 34 of the Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz, this incurs one-off costs of 190 euros plus MwSt. We will be happy to assist you in a personal consultation after our telephone call.

Kontaktformular

 

Rufen Sie uns an, schicken Sie uns eine Mail oder füllen Sie das Kontaktformular aus.

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
[email protected]

Rückruf

Um dieses Angebot nutzen zu können, müssen Sie der Speicherung Ihrer personenbezogenen Daten zustimmen. Wir behandeln diese streng vertraulich und verwenden sie nur zur Kontaktaufnahme mit Ihnen. Mehr dazu lesen Sie in unserer Datenschutzerklärung.

Bitte beachten Sie: Wenn wir uns konkret mit Ihrem Einzelfall befassen, ist dies eine sogenannte Erstberatung. Für eine solche entstehen gemäß § 34 Rechtsanwaltsvergütungsgesetz einmalige Kosten in Höhe von 190 Euro plus MwSt. Gerne helfen wir Ihnen im Anschluss an unser Telefonat in einem persönlichen Beratungsgespräch weiter.