Germany: Infringer cannot intervene in reinstatement procedure
Managing IP is part of the Delinian Group, Delinian Limited, 4 Bouverie Street, London, EC4Y 8AX, Registered in England & Wales, Company number 00954730
Copyright © Delinian Limited and its affiliated companies 2024

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 ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Lawyers weigh in on the USPTO’s request for comment on the effects of AI on prior art analysis and obviousness determinations
A vast majority of corporates – especially smaller businesses – rely on a trusted referral when instructing external counsel, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Munich Regional Court ruled that Lenovo was an unwilling licensee and had engaged in ‘holdout’ tactics
Technological innovation should play a critical role in advancing sustainable practices, argues Justin Delfino, global head of IP and R&D at Evalueserve
Ewan Grist of Bird & Bird, who acted for Lidl in its trademark victory against Tesco, reveals some of the lessons brand owners can take from the judgment
Dolby’s lawsuit at the Delhi High Court follows a record win by Ericsson earlier this year against the same defendant
Tee Tan, chief information officer at the owner of several IP firms, says to avoid tech just for the sake of it and explains how his company builds in-house tools
Regardless of whether the FTC’s ban on non-competes goes into effect, businesses should stop relying on these agreements
Mary Till, a former legal advisor at the USPTO who has joined Finnegan this week, is looking forward to providing clients with a USPTO perspective
Gift this article