Germany: Submissions filed in second instance nullity proceedings
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: Submissions filed in second instance nullity proceedings

In the court decision X ZR 111/13 – Telekommunikationsverbindung, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) discussed the flexibility that the parties have to amend the issues of dispute in second instance nullity proceedings. The case being considered relates to appeal proceedings before the German Federal Court of Justice reviewing the first instance decision in terms of the revocation of a patent by the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG).

In its decision, the Federal Court of Justice confirmed the revocation of the patent at first instance by the Federal Patent Court in respect of obviousness. The Federal Court of Justice considered new requests filed by the patentee at the stage of the second instance appeal proceedings to be inadmissible, since these new requests did not take account of a legal opinion expressed by the Federal Court of Justice which deviated from the first-instance assessment and the late-filing was due to the negligence of the party.

The decision at issue in the Federal Court of Justice takes into consideration previous rulings, such as the decision X ZR 2/13 – Analog-Digital-Wandler of the Federal Court of Justice of May 27 2014, in which it was considered that new requests may not be rejected if they represent an appropriate reaction to a notification given by the court during the appeal hearing.

In the decision at issue, the Federal Court of Justice went even further by stating that the patentee did not substantially react during first instance proceedings to the notification of the first instance court drawing the parties' attention to an attack made by the claimant. Therefore, the late-filing is considered to be due to the negligence of the party and, consequently, the new requests of the respective party are inadmissible in second instance proceedings, a ruling comparable to the European practice, as established in G 9/91 and G 10/91 for inter partes appeal procedures.

As a result, amendments and auxiliary requests filed in second instance nullity proceedings are to be rejected unless a deficiency occurred in the first instance proceedings, or late-filing is not due to the negligence of the party.

Lud_Simon

Simon Quartus Lud


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

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