Germany: Third party interventions to ex parte proceedings

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX

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 UK-India trade deal doesn’t mention legal services, showing India has again failed to agree on a move that could help foreign firms and local practitioners
Eva-Maria Strobel reveals some of the firm’s IP achievements and its approach to client relationships
Lateral hires at Thompson Hine and Pierson Ferdinand said they were inspired by fresh business opportunities and innovative strategies at their new firms
The launch of a new IP insurance product and INTA hiring a former USPTO commissioner were also among the top talking points this week
The firm explains how it secured a $170.6 million verdict against the government in a patent dispute surrounding airport technology, and why the case led to interest from other inventors
Developments of note included the court partially allowing a claim concerning confidentiality clubs and a decision involving technology used in football matches
The firm said adding capability in the French capital completes its coverage of all major patent litigation jurisdictions as it strives for UPC excellence
Marc Fenster explains how keeping the jury focused on the most relevant facts helped secure a $279m win for his client against Samsung
Clients are divided on what externally funded IP firms bring to the table, so those firms must prove why the benefits outweigh the downsides
Rahul Bhartiya, AI coordinator at the EUIPO, discusses the office’s strategy, collaboration with other IP offices, and getting rid of routine tasks
Gift this article