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: Inescapable trap for German parts of European patents not inescapable

Contrary to the very strict approach at the EPO in the situation in opposition proceedings referred to as the inescapable trap (where the patentee is squeezed between Article 123(2) and Article 123(3) EPC), which almost exclusively leads to the revocation of a European patent, Germany's Federal Supreme Court (BGH) has established a more liberal practice of dealing with such a situation for national German patents (see in particular the BGH's decision Xa ZB 14/09 Winkelmesseinrichtung).

In Managing IP's edition of October 2014, we reported on decision 4 Ni 34/12 (EP) Fettsaugeabrichtung by Germany's Federal Patent Court (BPatG). In this decision, the BPatG clarified that the above-mentioned case law established for national German patents does not apply to German parts of European patents. The decision could be interpreted such that this opens up a further opportunity for a third party who missed the nine-month opposition deadline in Europe to attack the German part of a European patent in nullity proceedings.

The above no longer applies in view a recent decision by the BGH, Germany's highest instance in patent matters. Although this decision by the BGH (X ZR 161/12 Wundbehandlungsvorrichtung) is not related to the above-mentioned BPatG-decision, the BGH explicitly referred to Fettsaugeabrichtung and took the opposite view of the BPatG. Thus, also the German parts of European patents may be maintained in German nullity proceedings according to the practice established for national German patents.

The BGH based its decision inter alia on Article II § 6 IntPatÜbkG. According to this Article, the nullity grounds for the German part of a European patent are listed in Article 138 EPC. While the BGH acknowledged that Article 138 EPC lists the grounds in an exclusive manner, the BGH went on to say that it is nevertheless possible for a national court to desist from declaring a patent null even if such a ground is present. The BGH further referred to Article 14 GG and stated that the constitutional protection of property including the right on a patent must be protected against unnecessary sovereign intervention. It seems that the BGH balanced this against the very strict inescapable trap approach in EPO practice.


Andreas Ledl

Maiwald Patentanwalts GmbHElisenhof, 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

Counsel are eying domestic industry, concurrent PTAB proceedings and heightened scrutiny of cases before institution
Jack Daniel’s has a good chance of winning its dispute over dog toys, but SCOTUS will still want to protect free speech, predict sources
AI users and lawyers discuss why the rulebook for registering AI-generated content may create problems and needs further work
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
A technical effect must still be evident in the original patent filing, the EBoA said in its G2/21 decision today, March 23
Brands should not be deterred from pursuing lookalike producers, and an unfair advantage claim could be the key, say Emma Teichmann and Geoff Steward at Stobbs
Justice Mellor’s highly anticipated ruling surprised SEP owners and reassured implementers that the UK may not be so hostile after all
The England and Wales High Court's judgment comes ahead of a separate hearing concerning one of the patents-in-suit at the EPO
While the rules allow foreign firms to open local offices and offer IP services, a ban on litigation and practising Indian law could mean little will change
A New York federal court heard oral arguments this week in a copyright case pitting publishing giants against a digital library