Germany: Determining litigation value in patent appeals

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

Germany: Determining litigation value in patent appeals

At last, Germany has clear guidelines regarding the litigation value of an appeal to the German Federal High Court of Justice (BGH) in patent application or opposition matters.

In its recent decision X ZB 3/15-Ratschenschlüssel II, the BGH provides patent applicants, patentees and opponents with clear guidelines on lower limits for the litigation value of an appeal to the BGH. Such appeals are possible under the German Patent Act subsequent to first instance appeal proceedings before the Federal Patent Court regarding a patent application or an opposition.

The determination of the litigation value of appeal proceedings before the Federal Court of Justice has to follow the same rules applicable to appeal proceedings before the Federal Patent Court. The litigation value shall therefore be determined with fair discretion, taking into account the parties' interest, but is limited by the value of the underlying judicial procedure.

In the case of an opposition to a patent, the objective interest of the parties may be quantifiable based on the value of the patent plus any claims for damages for which, in the absence of any other indication, the litigation value of pending or past infringement proceedings may provide the most tangible indication. The value of a patent that goes beyond this can be calculated with a surcharge of one quarter of the value of the infringement proceedings.

If there is no sufficient factual evidence for such an estimation, as in proceedings regarding a patent application, or in opposition proceedings without infringement of the patent, the value has to be determined differently. The fact that an applicant invests effort and expenses in the filing of a patent application and appealing against its refusal, and that the applicant will usually do so only in expectation of an associated economic benefit, justifies a minimum litigation value of €50,000 ($57,000). If a patent is opposed, a higher value is justified, namely €75,000 in case of a single opponent. If several parties oppose, this usually reflects an even greater general interest in the revocation of the patent, which justifies a further increase by €25,000 for each additional opponent.

Headnote BGH X ZB 3/15 (translated): The litigation value of the subject matter of a patent lawsuit shall be determined based on the reasonable interest of the appellant in accordance with the principles governing the valuation in nullity proceedings, if there is sufficient factual evidence for an estimate of the patent's intrinsic value. Otherwise, the litigation value in application proceedings is regularly €50,000. In opposition proceedings, the higher general interest is usually to be taken into account by means of a surcharge of €25,000 per opponent.

parchmann.jpg

Stefanie Parchmann


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

The move marks the latest step in Temu’s push to protect brands’ intellectual property by collaborating with industry groups and enforcement agencies. Managing IP learns about a rapidly scaling strategy and two success stories
A counterfeiting crackdown targeting fake FIFA World Cup merchandise and new partner hires by CMS, HGF and Winston Strawn were also among the top talking points
Law firms need to accept the hard truth: talent migration isn't personal; it's business as usual
Judge Alan Albright is to leave his role at the Western District of Texas, and could return to private practice
Stobbs has successfully seen off a contempt of court application filed against the firm and two of its lawyers
After almost a quarter of a century, Marshall Gerstein has a new managing partner
Abbott winning another round against Sinocare and Menarini, and 'long arm' clarification on the UK's position within the UPC, were also among major developments
Maria Peyman, head of IP at Birketts, explains why the firm is adopting a ‘seamless approach’ for clients by integrating two of its practice areas
Matthew Swinn, who leads the firm’s IP practice, discusses why Mallesons is well-placed to remain a major IP force
Lawyers at A&O Shearman analyse developments regarding UPC’s long-arm jurisdiction, including its scope and jurisdictional limits
Gift this article