Germany: How are patents interpreted after 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: How are patents interpreted after nullity proceedings?

judgment-image-final.jpg

In German patent law, the separation principle applies, according to which a patent claim is interpreted consistently in infringement and opposition, nullity and restriction proceedings. There is no mutual binding effect of decisions of the infringement or nullity courts, instead, each of the courts is responsible for determining the meaning of a patent claim, which is a legal question. For example, the grounds of a nullity decision on the maintenance of a patent with a restricted patent claim may serve as an interpretative aid for the infringement court. In principle, the currently valid version of a patent claim is relevant for its interpretation, and in the case of amendments in opposition or nullity or restriction proceedings, the amended version is therefore relevant. The subject matter of the patent claim is now determined by the wording of the restricted claim, as explained by the description and drawings in light of the grounds of the decision.

In the court decision 15 U 65/17, the Higher Regional Court (OLG) of Düsseldorf discussed a patent claim restricted in nullity proceedings before the Federal Patent Court (BPatG) regarding a urinary catheter set. For this patent, the description was not adapted to the restricted claim. This was of importance as the timing of the production of the low-friction surface character of the urinary catheter was disputed between the parties. According to the invention, a special coating was used in combination with a liquid swelling medium so that the low friction surface was able to glide through the walls of the urethra particularly easily. The claim required that this liquid swelling medium was accommodated in a storage body in a cavity. Due to a foreign reference, it was disputed between the parties whether the production of the low friction surface took place during production outside Germany or only by the user of the urinary catheter set in Germany. Passages of the original description, which was not amended in the nullity proceedings, also applied to embodiments. In these, the manufacturer of the urinary catheter set already achieves these effects.

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf reversed the decision of the lower court. For the interpretation of the disputed feature, according to which the low friction surface character is made prior to use of the catheter, in the absence of an adaptation of the description, the grounds of the nullity decision had to be used as a supplement to the patent description. As a result, the disputed feature as interpreted does not allow the finding of a literal infringement of the patent.

Thomas Ederer

more from across site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

The firm was among multiple winners at a record-breaking 2024 ceremony held in London on April 11
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
The Americas research cycle has commenced. Do not miss this opportunity to nominate your work!
Increased and new patent fees could affect prosecution strategies for law firms and companies, according to sources
Five former Oblon lawyers felt that joining Merchant & Gould would help them offer the right prices to entice clients
The UK may not be a UPC member but its firms are still acting in proceedings, with Carpmaels among the most prominent
Naomi Pearce of Pearce IP shares how she is helping her firm become a life sciences leader and how generous policies have helped attract top talent
The Court of Appeal has dismissed an appeal filed by Ocado, in what was a key test for transparency at the new court
Each week Managing IP speaks to a different IP lawyer or professional about their life and career
INTA is calling out ‘immoral’ unregistered attendees at the association’s annual meeting, but the debate is more nuanced
Gift this article