Germany: Infringing inventions dispersed across multiple territories

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

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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

Germany: Infringing inventions dispersed across multiple territories

Aprinciple of patent law is the principle of territoriality. This concerns the limited validity and enforceability of the patent in national territory.

Industry 4.0 and the Internet of Things (IoT) are mainly based on IT infrastructures dispersed across multiple territories. These geographically distributed systems are the result of connectivity and interoperability. Current inventions in these technologies usually only relate to improved interaction in already known components, which are sometimes operated in multiple countries all over the world at the same time.

The Regional Court of Munich ruled in the decision 7 O 16945/15 on the infringement of a geographically dispersed system comprising a mobile phone and a server. The court resolved the question of whether a device claim is infringed when only parts of the claimed system are used in the territory where the patent is protected while the remainder of the system is in operation abroad.

The Regional Court of Munich transferred and analogously applied previous considerations for geographically dispersed methods in a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, Prepaid-Telefonkarte (2 U 51/08). The court ruled in this case that for a violation of a method claim, it is sufficient that only a few of the claimed method steps are performed in the territory where the patent is protected if at least an economic relationship is present with the country covered by the patent. An economic relationship is established if the method steps undertaken abroad can be assigned to the entity carrying out the other process steps in the territory where the patent is protected.

At the Regional Court of Munich, there was no dispute between the parties that the defendant's server was located in a patent free country, while the mobile telephone was used in Germany, where the patent is valid.

The court affirmed the patent infringement. It is sufficient that the claimed system is used in Germany insofar as the mobile phones are located in Germany and communicate with the server which could be assigned to the defendant. The actual location of the defendant's server – undoubtedly one of the two structural features of the main claim – does not then matter anymore.

The ruling of the Regional Court of Munich illustrates the scope of patent protection for device claims in relation to the prevailing situation regarding Industry 4.0 and the IoT (the operation of cross-border digital computer systems).

Offshoring of subsystems to territories where patents are not protected does not mean patent protection can be bypassed. The analogous application of the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf to systems that are only partially located in the national territory where the patent is protected is appropriate and makes it possible to protect the network or cloud implemented inventions of Industry 4.0 and the IoT.

Simon 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

New members of the Access Advance patent pool and Harvard University coming under fire were also among the top talking points
Team from Graham Watt & Co will join Beck Greener’s London office
The firm reported a small uptick in overall revenue and profit per equity partner, while its IP team secured notable life sciences victories
Paul Ainsworth, who secured a settlement for his client in a patent dispute, says the case shows why medical claims by dietary supplement companies can threaten IP rights
Boies Schiller Flexner joins forces with Grünecker to target Skechers in Europe following US lawsuit
Helen Mutimer discusses how the firm’s IP advisory services are filling a gap in the market, and why life sciences work is soaring
In major recent developments, a confidentiality request was rejected, Samsung and its representative A&O Shearman secured a partial win, and EIP made a new hire
Tomas Wässingbo joins us for our ‘Five minutes with’ series to explain why he wants to change the perception around designs
PepsiCo was represented by PwC, while the Australian Taxation Office was advised by Australian-headquartered law firm MinterEllison
The firm said revenue from its ‘refreshed and expanded’ IP team increased by 4% in FY25
Gift this article