All material subject to strictly enforced copyright laws. © 2022 Managing IP is part of the Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC group.

German court rules on the admissibility of a second infringement action based on the same patent

Sponsored by maiwald-logo-cropped.PNG
rachit-tank-2cfz-fb08um-unsplash.jpg

Stefanie Parchmann and Damla Simsek of Maiwald Intellectual Property consider a patent case ruling by the German Federal Court of Justice

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH), on November 3 2020, handed down its decision X ZR 85/19.

The BGH ruled that the admissibility of a second patent infringement suit is not automatically precluded by the lis pendens of a first infringement suit or by the legal force of a judgment based on the infringement of the same patent issued in a previous infringement dispute between the parties.

Rather, the decisive question is whether the infringing act the defendant is accused of is the same (which would render the second action inadmissible) or different (which would render the second action admissible despite being based on the same patent).

The patent in question (EP 1 373 672) relates to a sash for a window or a door, the sash comprising a profile frame, a rebate with a delimiting web and an adhesive layer.

An earlier legal dispute between the parties had resulted in a judgment handed down by the appellate court on February 16 2017 which banned the defendant from offering profile frames for use in sashes in Germany without an eye-catching guideline that the profile frames may not be used in a way that the adhesive layer reaches the delimiting web.

In the renewed, second action which has now been brought before the BGH, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was contributory infringing the patent by offering window profile frames suitable to be used in the claimed window sashes. The question arose whether such second action might be inadmissible because the decision in the first legal dispute was already legally binding.

The BGH ruled that, first, Section 145 of the German Patent Law (PatG), which codifies the “concentration maxim”, did not preclude the second action. The reason being that said second action did not attack the same or similar infringing act based on a different patent, but rather a similar infringing act based on the same patent. Second, the court ruled that, for the same reason, the ne bis in idem rule did not render the second action inadmissible.

Thus, the action was found admissible despite being based on the same patent and being between the same parties. It was, however, dismissed on merits as no contributory infringement was found by the court.

It is of interest to note that, in spite of finding the action admissible, the BGH decided to issue a headnote that mentions the admissibility of a second patent infringement suit “may be precluded” by the lis pendens of a first infringement suit based on the same patent or the legal force of a judgment based on the infringement of the same patent issued in a previous infringement dispute between the parties (confirming X ZR 111/09).

 

Stefanie Parchmann

Partner, Maiwald

E: parchmann@maiwald.eu

Damla Simsek

Patent attorney trainee, Maiwald

E: simsek@maiwald.eu


 

More from across our site

Sources say it’s become harder to get ex-parte injunctions in patent suits at the Delhi High Court, but that the forum will remain a top pick for IP cases nonetheless
The UPC held a pilot training system for its new IT system in London last Thursday, June 30, and a full programme will follow later this year
In-house sources say clarity on what counts as lawful access to data will be key to the success of the UK’s new copyright exception
The attitude of ISPs continues to shift following a copyright claim filed at the England and Wales High Court
The EU is seeking to create a single market for data and trade secrets owners will need to prepare early, according to IP lawyers at Osborne Clarke
In-house and private practice counsel discuss issues with pre-grant opposition in India, including the rise of non-speaking orders and straw man filings
The US Supreme Court rejected an appeal on American Axle, dashing hopes of a judicial fix to patent eligibility uncertainty
The Copyright Office refused to grant protection on the basis that the authorship couldn’t be distinguished from the final work produced by the program
COVID vaccines top Clarivate’s new brands list; Fed Circuit reverses Coca-Cola’s TTAB win; Skechers sues Brooks; USPTO to retire Public PAIR tool; CCB sees cricket complaint
Lawyers should pay attention to APJs’ questions and remember that PTAB proceedings aren’t jury trials, say former PTAB judges
We use cookies to provide a personalized site experience.
By continuing to use & browse the site you agree to our Privacy Policy.
I agree