Germany: Third party interventions to ex parte proceedings

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: Third party interventions to ex parte proceedings

In a decision (BGH X ZB 4/14, "Verdickerpolymer II"), the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has resolved the question of third party interventions to ex parte proceedings. The BGH found that there is no legal basis for third party interventions to ex parte proceedings of the patent proprietor requesting reinstatement even when the third party is sued for infringement of the patent in suit.

The German part of European patent EP 682 094, maintained in amended form after opposition proceedings, lapsed in Germany because the proprietor failed to pay the publication fee and provide a German translation of the amended patent within the legal deadlines. The patent proprietor requested reinstatement and a third party being sued for infringement of the patent in suit requested intervention to the reinstatement proceedings.

Section 59(2) PatG provides a legal basis for third party interventions to inter-partes opposition proceedings in the case of pending infringement or declaratory proceedings. Section 44(2) PatG explicitly excludes third party interventions to ex-parte grant proceedings.

The BGH found that the lack of a provision concerning a third party intervention to ex-parte proceedings if the third party is sued for infringement of the patent in suit is not considered as an unplanned legal loophole. The restrictive character of the provisions for third party interventions indicates a conclusive nature that cannot be generalised. It is emphasised that reinstatement proceedings are ancillary proceedings conducted in the course of main proceedings and if third party interventions to main proceedings are only allowed under exceptional circumstances similar hurdles must apply for associated ancillary proceedings.

With respect to decision BGH X ZB 26/70 "Hopfenextrakt", wherein an opponent was allowed to participate in reinstatement proceedings, it is emphasised that this decision has been issued under the previous law and is based on the prerequisite that opposition proceedings are conducted as part of grant proceedings. The decision is not considered applicable when opposition proceedings and grant proceedings are independent from each other.

It has been clarified that a third party intervention to ancillary proceedings is only allowable if the third party is involved in the corresponding main proceedings. Furthermore, the existing provisions on third party interventions are considered conclusive.

Tim Pust


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 renowned food brands were represented by a host of lawyers, including members of the firms’ IP teams
Partners at Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing discuss how Saudi Arabia offers unique opportunities for firms dealing in IP and tech
Attorneys explain why there are early signs that the US Supreme Court could rule in favour of ISP Cox in a copyright dispute
A swathe of UPC-related hires suggests firms are taking the forum seriously, as questions over the transitional stage begin
A win for Nintendo in China and King & Spalding hiring a prominent patent litigator were also among the top talking points
Rebecca Newman at Addleshaw Goddard, who live-reported on the seminal dispute, unpicks the trials and tribulations of the case and considers its impact
Attorneys predict how Lululemon’s trade dress and design patent suit against Costco could play out
Lawyers at Linklaters analyse some of the key UPC trends so far, and look ahead to life beyond the transition period
David Rodrigues, who previously worked at an IP boutique, said he may become more involved in transactional work at his new firm
Indian smartphone maker Lava must pay $2.3 million as a security deposit for past sales, as its dispute with Dolby over audio coding SEPs plays out
Gift this article