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 2026

Accessibility | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Modern Slavery Statement

Cookies Settings

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

Mehmet Gün and Uğur Aktekin discuss four decades of change in Türkiye’s legal market, the firm’s commitment to independence and the challenge of building an institution that can outlast its founders
Boehringer Ingelheim has instructed a team from Kirkland, while Teva is being represented by Pinsent Masons
The Delhi High Court’s latest directions offer an opportunity to move beyond remedies against bad-faith registrations and address how suspicious applications are identified in the first place, says Fatima Baig at Lexlinc
Camilla Hamrin describes how the acquisition by Acapo Onsagers will impact Bergenstråhle’s trademark practice – and reflects on changes she has seen over 30 years in IP
On a recent trip to the French capital, we learned that the UPC is squeezing domestic litigation while firms are chasing senior talent, experimenting with AI and considering new ways of organising their practices
Daniel Law says a string of lateral hires and broader expansion plans will strengthen its position to capitalise on Brazil’s burgeoning IP and patent litigation market
Jason Raeburn’s arrival will expand the firm’s London footprint in AI, copyright and tech disputes
The firm is shaping its AI strategy around partnerships with Harvey and Legora alongside internally developed tools from its legal technology company, Eltemate
A dispute Down Under shows why trademark lawyers cannot afford to wait on the sidelines when a rival brand gathers momentum
The Third Circuit’s decision in Thomson Reuters v ROSS marks the first appellate-level decision addressing AI and fair use, prompting copyright counsel to consider arguments around potential licensing markets
Gift this article