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

Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei

  • 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. Karl-Hermann Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Tim Meyer-Dulheuer
      • Dr. Klaus Zimmermann
      • Zhichao Ying
      • Clara Elinor Grünewald
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Inadmissibility of an appeal in German patent nullity proceedings

2. May 2019

If a patent in the granted version and also in a limited version is defended in the first instance, any grounds of appeal must challenge any supporting consideration. The BGH issued a ruling on the inadmissibility of an appeal in German patent nullity proceedings.

egg carton in patent nullityIf the court of first instance has based the dismissal of the action on several independent, independently supporting legal considerations, the grounds of appeal must challenge each supporting consideration; otherwise the appeal is inadmissible, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled in a landmark decision. It is necessary to indicate, in an intelligible manner, which particular points of the judgment under appeal the appellants are contesting and why. This guiding principle decision brings clarity to the inadmissibility of the appeal in patent nullity proceedings.

Appeal in patent nullity proceedings concerning an egg carton

The origin of the guiding principle decision lies in a legal dispute over a European patent on an egg carton. The patent at issue EP 1 373 100 describes a display and shipping package for eggs or similar fragile articles which combines the respective advantages of an egg box (pattern of supporting ribs) and a large surface area for information and, where appropriate, good advertising possibilities.

The Federal Patent Court had declared the patent in dispute null and void at first instance for the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany in its entirety (3 Ni 10/16 (EP)) and justified this decision with the lack of novelty of the patent, since the prior art had already been disclosed. Specifically, the BPatG referred to the disclosures made by US patent 2 978 162 on a shaped pulp egg carton (GDM1) and US patent 101 892 on a honeycomb egg carton (GDM4). GDM1 and GDM4 had suggested to the expert that the packaging should be made of opaque pulp and designed with an essentially flat top wall, the BPatG had stated in the grounds for the judgment. The appeal of the proprietor of the patent in dispute was directed against this.

BGH regards the grounds of appeal as inadmissible

However, the BGH considered the grounds of appeal to be inadmissible. The appellate court only attacked the considerations with which the patent court justified the harmfulness to novelty of the GDM4 as erroneous and referred with regard to the GDM1 only to its first-instance submission, the Federal Court of Justice stated in its ruling. The reason for the appeal to GDM1 was only given as a reply and after the expiry of the period for filing an appeal. What is required, however, is an indication in the appeal, which is understandable in itself, of which certain points of the contested judgment the appellant contests and why. If the patentee has defended the patent in dispute in the first instance both in the granted and in a limited version, he must, if he also wishes to defend the granted version before the Federal Supreme Court, challenge any independent supporting reason with which the Federal Patent Court did not consider the patent in dispute to be legally valid in the granted version and declared it invalid in this respect, the Federal Supreme Court ruled.

Lead decision

An appeal shall be inadmissible if the patent proprietor who is unsuccessful in the patent nullity proceedings before the patent court does not, by stating the grounds of appeal, challenge every independent, self-supporting legal consideration with which the full or partial nullity of the contested patent is justified in the judgment under appeal.

Support ribs in egg carton – State-of-the-art?

However, the BGH contradicted the considerations of the BPatG regarding GDM4. The BPatG had ruled that the feature of a pattern of supporting ribs connecting the basic areas of the egg-shaped compartments results from the disclosure by GDM4, and is not based on inventive step in relation to GDM1, since the extension of the supporting ribs in the direction of the bottom of the package is a measure which, depending on the desired stiffening, is at the discretion of the skilled person.

The BGH contradicted this view. Contrary to the opinion of the Patent Court, the extension of the supporting ribs to the ground is not a measure which the skilled person wishes to take depending on the desired stiffening. Although GDM4 reveals floor-deep support ribs, the BGH justified its decision by stating that the design of the egg carton with symmetrical upper and lower parts deviates from GDM1. Since the position of the supporting ribs has an effect on the stability of the egg box, the extension of the supporting ribs to the ground does not constitute an arbitrary measure of the expert but requires a construction deviating from the state-of-the-art.

The European patent 1 373 100 was therefore partially declared invalid with effect for the Federal Republic of Germany in the version of the patent in dispute granted.

 

Do you any help in patent protection or patent proceeding?

Our lawyers are experienced in trademark and patent law, national and international law.

 

 

 

Sources:

Judgement BGH X ZR 37/17 (in German)

Picture:

emmzett /pixabay.com / CCO License  

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet  
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconPatent,  BGH,  BPatG,  lead decision,  Germany,  judgement,  Federal Supreme Court,  nullity proceedings,  appeal,  German patent law,  Patent Court,  state of the art,  patent nullity,  appeal Germany,  Inadmissibility of an appeal

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
This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Recent Posts

  • Bacardi wins in trademark dispute Vodka 42 BELOW 20. January 2021
  • HALLOUMI vs. BBQLOUMI: Cyprus loses again in trademark dispute 20. January 2021
  • Short word marks and similarity: First letter is not everything 19. January 2021
  • Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile? 18. January 2021

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:

18. January 2021
Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile?

Where in Europe is a patent application worthwhile?

15. January 2021
BGH ‘Cigarette package’: Extension of undisclosed features in EU patent

BGH ‘Cigarette package’: Extension of undisclosed features in EU patent

11. January 2021
Patent for coding of audio signals confirmed by German BPatG

Patent for coding of audio signals confirmed by German BPatG

8. January 2021
GAIA-X: German funding program for European Cloud

GAIA-X: German funding program for European Cloud

5. January 2021
Employee invention of managing directors or board members?

Employee invention of managing directors or board members?

4. January 2021
4IR and industry 4.0: Statistics of International Patent Applications

4IR and industry 4.0: Statistics of International Patent Applications

Footer

Contact

Franklinstr. 61-63
D-60486 Frankfurt am Main
Germany

+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 0
+49 (0) 69 / 606 278 – 199
[email protected]

Customer Reviews

Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB Patentrecht, Markenrecht, Eigentum hat 4,78 von 5 Sternen 23 Bewertungen auf ProvenExpert.com

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
  • Info secure emails
  • Company
  • Our Law Firm
  • ISO Certificate
  • Privacy Policy
  • Data handling for clients
  • Imprint

Follow Us

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • LinkedIn
  • xing
  • Email

Newsletter Signup

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

© Patent- & Rechtsanwaltskanzlei Meyer-Dulheuer MD Legal Patentanwälte PartG mbB

Kontaktformular

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form

Contact Form

 

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

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

This form uses Google Recaptcha.

You must accept cookies from Google recaptcha to use this form.

More information can be found in our privacy policy.

load form