Germany: Submissions filed in second instance nullity proceedings

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Germany: Submissions filed in second instance nullity proceedings

In the court decision X ZR 111/13 – Telekommunikationsverbindung, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) discussed the flexibility that the parties have to amend the issues of dispute in second instance nullity proceedings. The case being considered relates to appeal proceedings before the German Federal Court of Justice reviewing the first instance decision in terms of the revocation of a patent by the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG).

In its decision, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed the revocation of the patent at first instance by the Federal Patent Court in respect of obviousness. The Federal Court of Justice considered new requests filed by the patentee at the stage of the second instance appeal proceedings to be inadmissible, since these new requests did not take account of a legal opinion expressed by the Federal Court of Justice which deviated from the first-instance assessment and the late-filing was due to the negligence of the party.

The decision at issue in the Federal Court of Justice takes into consideration previous rulings, such as the decision X ZR 2/13 – Analog-Digital-Wandler of the Federal Court of Justice of May 27 2014, in which it was considered that new requests may not be rejected if they represent an appropriate reaction to a notification given by the court during the appeal hearing.

In the decision at issue, the Federal Court of Justice went even further by stating that the patentee did not substantially react during first instance proceedings to the notification of the first instance court drawing the parties' attention to an attack made by the claimant. Therefore, the late-filing is considered to be due to the negligence of the party and, consequently, the new requests of the respective party are inadmissible in second instance proceedings, a ruling comparable to the European practice, as established in G 9/91 and G 10/91 for inter partes appeal procedures.

As a result, amendments and auxiliary requests filed in second instance nullity proceedings are to be rejected unless a deficiency occurred in the first instance proceedings, or late-filing is not due to the negligence of the party.

Lud_Simon

Simon Quartus Lud


Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbHElisenhof, Elisenstr 3D-80335, Munich, GermanyTel: +49 89 74 72 660 Fax: +49 89 77 64 24info@maiwald.euwww.maiwald.eu

more from across site and SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The latest round of promotions has contributed to a 21% rise in partner headcount in the past two years, with business leaders eyeing litigation and the UPC
João Negrão, EUIPO executive director, is joined by a seasoned official to reflect on three decades of stories
Sim & San, which secured the $16m victory for their client, previously led Communications Components Antenna to a $26m damages win in 2024
IP litigator Ruth Hoy has led the London office since 2022
Emotional Perception AI is seeking more than £200,000 after the UK Supreme Court backed its appeal
Lawyers at Pinsent Masons discuss why the advent of ‘AI-free’ might be a crucial moment for brands seeking to protect their identity
Newly independent King & Wood has established offices in North America, while Mallesons has entered a ‘new era’ with a 1,200-lawyer firm across Australia and Singapore
Ryan Dykal and John Wittenzellner of Boies Schiller Flexner tell Managing IP what’s driving the firm’s patent litigation expansion
News of Dolby suing Snap over AV1 and HEVC patents and SCOTUS offering guidance on the liability of internet service providers were also among the top talking points
Arrival of Caitlin Heard will bolster the soon-to-be-created Ashurst Perkins Coie’s IP presence in the capital
Gift this article