Germany: Infringer cannot intervene in reinstatement procedure

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: Infringer cannot intervene in reinstatement procedure

Recently, the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) had to decide on the request of a complainant, himself sued for patent infringement, to become a party in an ex parte reinstatement procedure concerning the allegedly infringed patent. After the European patent was maintained in opposition in amended form, the patentee failed to perform the required validation steps in time before the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO). Having been informed by the GPTO about the loss of his German patent, the patentee requested reinstatement and simultaneously performed the required validation actions.

A third party, sued for infringement of this patent, intervened before the Patent Office and requested to become a party to the reinstatement procedure, because it was directly affected by the outcome of the reinstatement.

The GPTO rejected the request to become a party and granted restitutio in integrum to the patentee for his patent. The Federal Patent Court and the BGH confirmed this decision.

In its decision (XZB4/14, Verdickerpolymer II), the BGH argued that the patent law provides the possibility for a party being sued for patent infringement to intervene in a procedure at the Patent Office only under particular circumstances, for example an intervention of the accused infringer in a continuing opposition procedure. This being lex specialis, the BGH denied a general possibility of intervention in any other Patent Office proceedings by a third party being affected by the outcome.

Reinstatement proceedings are generally an "intermediate procedure" in a main procedure, such as examination, grant, or in the decided case, a validation procedure. There, intervention is not provided in the law.

While in opposition proceedings, where intervention is implemented in the law, the intervener may become a party to a reinstatement procedure, the BGH concluded that there is no legal basis for becoming a party as intervener in ex-parte proceedings at the German Patent Office.

hansen.jpg

Norbert Hansen


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

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
Powell Gilbert’s opening in Düsseldorf, complete with a new partner hire, continues this summer’s trend of UPC-related lateral movement
IP leaders at Brandsmiths and Bird & Bird, who were on opposing sides at the UK Supreme Court in Iconix v Dream Pairs, unpick the landmark case and its ramifications
Gift this article