Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 8 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

Chris Semerjian, MacNeal Darnley and Nicolas Charest provide an overview of trade secret law in Canada and reveal best measures to protect and enforce trade secrets.
Inspired by his former team at Pure Storage, Suvashis Bhattacharya wants to reward inventors with merchandise, he tells Managing IP in an exclusive interview
IP minister George Freeman said on Wednesday that plans for a broad text and data mining exception would not go ahead and that further consultation was needed
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The trademark battle over ‘MetaBirkin’ NFTs could inform future legal strategies and will provide at least some answers, whichever way it turns, say sources
The EPO BoA says the choice of format now rests with individual boards, sparking outrage from attorneys who say in-person hearings are the ‘gold standard’
Counsel at SMEs and private practice advisers say funding schemes are useful but must be backed by wider changes
Counsel welcome the Delhi High Court’s clarity on claim amendment but worry that its interpretation of the Patents Act negates statutory law
Kitchin is to hear the DABUS case before stepping down on September 29 this year
Numerous studies show that lawyers are increasingly stressed at work and looking for a way out, but law firms are still in denial