• 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
      • Dr. Christoph Hölscher
    • Commitment
  • Contact
    • Where To Find Us
    • Write us!
    • Request call back
  • Blog

Declaration of division of the patent application – where to be filed?

1. July 2019

With its recent ruling, the Federal Supreme Court reversed a contrary ruling of the BPatG on the declaration of division of a patent in an appeal instance. The focus was on the responsibility for receiving the declaration of division: was it to be filed at the patent court or at the DPMA?

The Federal Patent Court, in its 2018 judgment, held that the declaration of division of a patent was invalid and dismissed the application for restitutio in integrum as inadmissible (we reported: Patent application in appeal instance – declaration of division to DPMA or BPatG?).  In essence, it was about the responsibility for receiving the declaration of division, because in the this case the patent office (DPMA) had received the declaration of division. Since, however, the application was still pending before the appeal court, the Patent Office therefore had no competence to receive a declaration of division, the BPatG ruled, since the declaration of division of the application under § 39 Patent Law had to be filed, according to case law, at the office where the application was pending at that time. The applicant appealed against this judgement of 2018 with a legal appeal before the BGH.

BGH reversed BPatG ruling

The BGH now reversed this judgment: Contrary to the opinion of the Patent Court, the applicant had declared the division of the application in good time, the Federal Court of Justice ruled. If the applicant declares the division of the application only after the patent court has rejected the appeal, the declaration must be made to the Patent Office, which also relinquishes responsibility for the substantive examination of the divisional application.

According to Sec. 39 (1), 1st sentence, Patent Law, the applicant may divide the patent application at any time, the BGH clarified. The only prerequisite for this is that the parent application still exists in law.

In the present case, the applicant lodged an appeal against the decision rejecting the application in due time and the division was therefore possible until the appeal instance was closed, irrespective of whether the appeal was admissible or well founded. The BGH ruled in its ruling that the applicant may also divide the application while a legal appeal against the rejection of his appeal is pending.

Responsibilities for the receipt of a declaration of division

Since the jurisdiction of the Patent Office (DPMA) or the Patent Court (BPatG) also played a relevant role in this case, the second part of the ruling of the BGH also clarified the jurisdiction to receive a declaration of division, especially in an appeal instance.

The BGH ruled:

“The division of the application shall be declared to the Patent Court, which shall also examine the divisional application as soon as the applicant has filed an appeal against the rejection of the application – and also, as here, of a parent application – and the appeal proceedings have become pending before the Patent Court.

However, if the applicant declares the division of the application only after the patent court has rejected the appeal, the declaration shall be made to the Patent Office, which shall also be responsible for the substantive examination of the divisional application”. (Quoted and translated from the leading decision of BGH)

The BGH stated that, in principle, the jurisdiction for the substantive examination and also the examination of the divisional application lies with the Patent Court if the division is declared after the proceedings concerning the applicant’s complaint have become pending before the Patent Court. The BPatG rightly took this into account in its judgment. Nor is the recent view of the Patent Court that the decision on a divisional application based on a division of the patent declared during the pendency of the proceedings on the applicant’s complaint should be referred back to the Patent Office.

If the division of the application is declared only after the proceedings on the applicant’s complaint have become pending before the patent court, the patent court must therefore in principle decide not only on the application for grant of a patent for the parent application but also on the further application for grant of a patent based on the same invention, the Federal Supreme Court clarified.

Patent Court does not have jurisdiction if the complaint has already been dismissed

However, a different assessment of receipt and examination competence would be necessary if the division of the patent application is declared only after the patent court has already dismissed the appeal. For then the proceedings before the Federal Supreme Court (BGH) are pending as a court of appeal – or can still be pending there. This was the case in this dispute because the time limit for the appeal had not yet expired. Unlike the Patent Court, the Federal Supreme Court is only called upon to review the appeal decision in law (§ 101.2 German Patent Law). In the event of a division during the appeal proceedings, the divisional application could therefore neither be examined by the Federal Supreme Court, which did not grant a patent, nor by the patent court, at which the proceedings were no longer pending, the Federal Supreme Court ruled. The responsibility for examining the divisional application therefore reverts to the Patent Office DPMA.

The BGH therefore set aside the judgment of the BPatG (19 W(pat) 33/17) with its judgment X ZB 9/18 – “Abstandsberechnungsverfahren” and referred the case back to the DPMA.

Sources:

BGH Urteil X ZB 9/18 – Abstandsberechnungsverfahren

Image:

annca /pixabay.com / CCO License  

 

  • share  12 
  • share 
  • share 
  • tweet 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag iconPatent Act,  Patent Application,  BGH,  division of the application,  Germany,  appeal instance,  time limit,  Federal Supreme Court,  declaration of division,  appeal,  restitutio in integrum,  German patent law,  Division,  Application,  German Federal Patent Court

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

  • 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
  • EOS lip balm no 3D trademark – appeal before ECJ not admissible 24. 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

Torhaus Westhafen
Speicherstrasse 59
D – 60327 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

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

Contact Form

 

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

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

Kontaktformular

 

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

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