Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2023

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

Germany: Court decides on issues related to declaration of division during appeal

According to Section 39 of the German Patent Act, the applicant may divide an application at any time by submitting a declaration of division. The text of the divisional application can be filed within three months of receipt of this declaration.

In a recent decision (19 W (pat) 33/17), the Federal Patent Court had to decide on two issues: (i) to which body the declaration of division has to be submitted during the appeal stage, and (ii) whether or not re-establishment of rights for submitting this declaration can be requested.

In this particular case, a patent application was rejected by the examining division of the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO), and the applicant filed an appeal with the Federal Patent Court. However, the appeal was dismissed. Within the time limit for filing an appeal on points of law with the Federal Court of Justice, the applicant submitted a declaration of division to the GPTO but not to the Federal Patent Court. Shortly after expiry of the time limit, the GPTO forwarded the declaration of division to the Federal Patent Court. As the applicant did not appeal the decision of the Federal Patent Court, the application was not pending anymore at the time when the GPTO forwarded the declaration of division to the Federal Patent Court.

Based on the following reasoning, the Federal Patent Court decided that no effective declaration of division had been submitted.

While an application is pending in the appeal stage, the declaration of division is to be submitted exclusively to the Federal Patent Court. This also applies if the Federal Patent Court has already issued its decision on the appeal. In this case, the Federal Patent Court remained the competent authority to decide on whether or not an effective declaration of division was submitted and, if effective, on patentability of the divisional application.

Furthermore, the Federal Patent Court decided that Section 39 of the German Patent Act does not contain – not even implicitly – a time limit, which is why no re-establishment of rights for submitting a declaration of division is possible. The approach taken by the Federal Patent Court is in line with the case law of the Boards of Appeal (e.g. J 10/12).

The Federal Patent Court considered both issues i.e. the correct addressee for the declaration of division during the appeal stage (in particular if the Federal Patent Court has already issued its decision on the appeal), and the re-establishment of rights for the declaration of division as legal matters of fundamental importance and therefore allowed an appeal to the Federal Court of Justice.


Christian Haggenmüller

Maiwald Patentanwalts- und Rechtsanwaltsgesellschaft mbH

Elisenhof, Elisenstr 3D-80335, Munich, GermanyTel: +49 89 74 72 660 Fax: +49 89 77 64

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Civil society and industry representatives met in Geneva on Thursday, September 28 to discuss a potential expansion of the TRIPS waiver
Sources say the beta version of the USPTO’s new trademark search tool is a big improvement over the current system but that it isn’t perfect
Canadian counsel weigh in on the IP office’s decision to raise trademark filing fees in 2024 and how they’re preparing clients
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Shira Perlmutter, US Register of Copyrights, discussed the Copyright Office's role in forming generative AI policy during a House of Representatives hearing
The award marks one of the highest-ever damages received by a foreign company in a trademark infringement suit in China
Two orders denying public access to documents have reignited a debate over a lack of transparency at the new court
Rouse’s new chief of operations and the firm’s CEO tell Managing IP why they think private equity backing will help it conquer Europe
Brian Landry, partner at Saul Ewing, reveals how applicants can prosecute patent applications in the wake of the Federal Circuit's In re Cellect ruling
Ronelle Geldenhuys of Australia’s Foundry IP considers the implications complex computer technologies such as AI have on decision-making