Guest post: Future double patent protection in Germany
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

Guest post: Future double patent protection in Germany


A legislative draft dated February 5 2016 suggests lifting the traditional German prohibition on double protection (enabling the patent owner to decide which one to enforce), and allowing a defendant who is sued for infringement in the UPC to object to a parallel infringement suit in Germany. Ulrich Blumenröder explains

Blumenröder Ulrich (Grunecker) 300
Ulrich Blumenröder

Germany, like other EU member states, is preparing for the UPC. So far the drafts appear to keep the promise that any new law means additional work for IP lawyers. The German lawmaker opted to be complicated. Its draft is based on the assumption that double protection is allowed under the UPC Agreement. Indeed this is what the draft appears to provide. But in the end it is limited. In the future (as in the past) you will be able to file:

·         a German national patent application; and

·         a European patent application (which can later evolve into a European patent with unitary effect) – actually it will stay a traditional European patent, valid as national patent in Turkey et al and as a Unitary Patent in the participating member states; but that is dogmatic)

Double patenting

The proposed law allowsdouble patentingto a bigger extent than it is now the case:

It is proposed that the German national patent ceases to be effective (to the extent it protects the same invention as the European patent) under new Article II § 8 of the German Act on the International patent treaties (IntPatÜG) only if a parallel European patent is opted out under Article 83 (3) from the exclusive jurisdiction of the UPC as of either of the following events:   

·         expiration of the opposition period without opposition being filed;

·         end of opposition with the European patent being upheld;

·         entry of opt out if this happens after opposition is not filed or after opposition ends with upholding; or

·         grant of the German patent if it is granted after the three aforementioned circumstances.

Hence, double protection is allowed for:

·         German patents and parallel traditional non opted-out European patents.

·         German patents and parallel Unitary Patents.

Impact on infringement litigation

This has consequences for infringement litigation. Since double protection is allowed to a greater extent, there may evolve parallel infringement suits before German district courts on the one hand and the UPC on the other based on:

·         a German patent and a parallel traditional European patent; or

·         a German patent and a parallel Unitary Patent

For such parallel infringement litigation, the draft German law provides for a bar: the defendant in Germany is entitled to object to being subject to two suits. The German suit is to be dismissed (or stayed until the UPC proceedings have come to an end and then be dismissed.)

The details are listed in new § 18, which requires:

·         same inventor;

·         same invention with same priority;

·         such European patent with or without unitary effect is subject to pending or finalised proceeding before UPC;

·         proceedings pertain to same or “similar action”;

·         proceedings with same parties; and

·         defendant (in Germany) objects prior to start of oral hearing.


The objective is to safeguard the interests of the defendant. This is necessary because the patent owner has various ways - and therefore more flexibility - to proceed not only either before the German court on the basis of the German patent or before the UPC based on the (not opted out) traditional European patent or the (necessarily not opted out) Unitary Patent. Rather, he may also bring such actions before both the German court and the UPC in parallel; for this case, the defendant is granted protection against being sued twice.

Two flaws

There seem to be two flaws in the new proposed regime:

(1) The lawmaker forgot that during the course of an opposition pending with the EPO there is no bar. Given the time of an opposition procedure compared to the time contemplated for an UPC proceeding, parallel suits are possible.

(2) Article II 18 does notbar motions for declaration of non-infringement. Hence, the defendant in a German suit who knows of the parallel Unitary Patent or the not-opted out traditional European patent can file such complaint for declaration of non-infringement with the UPC. Subsequently, the German case is to be dismissed.

The second issue has already been mentioned. The flaw might be rectified in the future.

On its face the reform is meant to increase options for patent owners. And it does. Yet, at the same token it is a resolution of no confidence against the UPC and its judges. Quite obviously, the lawmaker does not trust the UPC. That the German Patent Office as well as the German Federal Patent Court might get some more work out of it appears to be a mere side effect.

Impact on strategy

What does that mean for strategy? Those who want to have access to both worlds so far appeared to be forced to select one of two courses: (1) file a European patent, file a divisional and opt out for one of the two European patents or (2) file a European patent and branch off a utility model. Now there will be a third option, namely to file a European patent and file for German patent protection. For those with a strong German presence, this could be a good choice.

Ulrich Blumenröder is a partner of IP firm Grünecker in Munich

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

External counsel for automotive companies explain how trends such as AI and vehicle connectivity are affecting their practices and reveal what their clients are prioritising
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis coverage from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The winners of the awards will be revealed at a gala dinner in New York City on April 25
Counsel debate the potential outcome of SCOTUS’s latest copyright case after justices questioned whether they should dismiss it
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer about their life and career
The small Düsseldorf firm is making a big impact in the UPC. Founding partner Christof Augenstein explains why
The court criticised Oppo’s attempts to delay proceedings and imposed a penalty, adding that the Chinese company may need to pay more if the trial isn’t concluded this year
Miguel Hernandez explains how he secured victory for baby care company Naterra in his first oral argument before the Federal Circuit
The UPC judges are wrong – restricting access to court documents, and making parties appoint a lawyer only to have a chance of seeing them, is madness
The group, which includes the Volkswagen, Seat and Audi brands, is now licensed to use SEPs owned by more than 60 patent owners
Gift this article