• 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

Law to modernisation of German patent law adopted

6. November 2020

Long awaited, now it has been decided by the Federal Cabinet: the modernisation of patent law in Germany. It contains some major changes to patent infringement proceedings – is this the end of the Injunction Gap? –  and clarifies the proportionality of injunctive relief, i.e. of patent trolls.

Modernisierung des PatentrechtsThe bill “To simplify and modernise patent law” was presented as a government draft and adopted by the Federal Cabinet on 28 October 2020. Usually such a law will actually enter into force a few months later, i.e. probably in spring 2021.

Amendments on patent infringement proceedings

There are two main aspects of the current practice of patent infringement proceedings which the new law on the modernisation of patent law aims to improve:

Injunctive relief must be proportionate

On the one hand, proportionality considerations are to be taken into account in future in the case of injunctive relief for infringements of patents and utility models To this end, the existing § 139 PatG will be supplemented and it will be expressly regulated in § 139 PatG that the right to injunctive relief can be limited exceptionally if the claim to injunctive relief due to special circumstances would lead to a disproportionate hardship for the infringer or third parties which is not justified by the exclusive right. Analogously, the same shall be formulated as a law for utility models, here as an amendment to § 24 of the Utility Model Act.

Time limit for proceedings at the BPatG – Is this the end of the Injunction Gap?

On the other hand, nullity proceedings before the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) are to be significantly accelerated. This has been expected by many parties for years in order to end the so-called “Injunction Gap” between patent infringement and nullity proceedings as far as possible.

In previous practice, the court has usually set a date for oral proceedings in contentious proceedings. Up to now, this could cause a delay in the proceedings if the parties did not present their case in full until the date of the hearing or at the hearing itself – a tactical element and also known as an element of abuse due to the possible injunction gap.

The regulation now adopted goes in the desired direction in this matter.

As in the past, the patent proprietor will be invited to declare his intention to file an application for a declaration of invalidity within one month of receiving notification of the application. A statutory period of one additional month is now introduced for filing the grounds for opposition.
The court will then have up to four months to examine the submissions of both parties and prepare the qualified statement.

Therefore, § 83 PatG introduces a period of time within which the BPatG must submit its notification decision to the infringement court: this must be done within 6 months. The Federal Patent Court will be empowered to disregard any submissions of the parties received after the expiry of the time limit for the notification order.

Furthermore, § 82 PatG is amended: an obligation to serve the action immediately and without delay is added. In addition, § 82 PatG-E creates a time limit regulation for nullity proceedings in paragraph 3, thus eliminating the previous setting of time limits by the Federal Patent Court. The time limit is two months in total and starts with the service of the action on the defendant. The previous practice was to set by the BPatG deadlines for pleadings under § 99 PatG in conjunction with §§ 273 et seq. ZPO. This is no longer the case with the modernisation of patent law.

Proportionality of injunctions

In the precise definition of proportionality in injunctions, the adopted draft law addresses both the specific situations of licence infringements and long periods of research and development.

In summary, it can be said that the law provides for several case constellations in which an exceptional restriction of the patent right to injunctive relief for reasons of proportionality is advocated. This is the case when

  • the infringer has invested long periods of time in research and development
  • and also when patent exploiters, better known as patent trolls, occur in the event of licence infringements.
  • The same applies to complex products, especially in the electronics, telecommunications, IT and automotive industries.

The law therefore deliberately dispenses with concrete criteria and refers to the necessity of individual case decisions.

Further changes: own revocation for SPC becomes possible

The bill provides for many more changes, lot of them technical, and adjustments to modernise the patent law. Of these, the following amendments should be mentioned at this point:

The German Patent Act will be supplemented by a reference that for supplementary protection certificates (SPC) a – retroactive – revocation by the property right owner himself should be possible (so far this could only be done upon request of a third party). In addition, further processing (analogous to § 123a PatG) will also be possible for supplementary protection certificates. For this purpose, § 16a (2) Patent Law is to be amended.

Are you looking for advice on patent law and patent protection?

Our attorneys have many years of expertise and will be happy to advise you. Please contact us if you are interested – we look forward to your call!


Sources: 

RegE_PatMog2: Bill on the modernisation of German patent law

Image:

succo | pixabay.com | CCO License

 

  • share  
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 
  • share 

Category iconPatent Law Tag icon§ 83 PatG,  between patent infringement and revocation proceedings,  BPatG,  claims for injunctive relief,  exception of immediate injunction,  injection gap,  injunction,  modernisation of patent law,  patent infringement proceedings,  proceedings before the Federal Patent Court,  proportionality,  revocation of SPC,  SPC,  time limit for information decision

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

© MD LEGAL Patentanwalt, European Patent Attorney 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.