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

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 site and ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Counsel reveal how a proposal to create separate briefings for discretionary denials at the USPTO could affect their PTAB strategies
The UK Supreme Court rejected the firm’s appeal against an earlier ruling because it did not raise an arguable point of law
Loes van den Winkel, attorney at Arnold & Siedsma, explains why clients' enthusiasm is contagious and why her job does not mean managing fashion models
Allen & Gledhill partner Jia Yi Toh shares her experience of representing the winning team in the first-ever case filed under Singapore’s new fast-track IP dispute resolution system
In-house lawyers reveal how they balance cost, quality, and other criteria to get the most from their relationships with external counsel
Dario Pietrantonio of Robic discusses growth opportunities for the firm and shares insights from his journey to managing director
We provide a rundown of Managing IP’s news and analysis from the week, and review what’s been happening elsewhere in IP
Law firms that pay close attention to their client relationships are more likely to win repeat work, according to a survey of nearly 29,000 in-house counsel
The EMEA research period is open until May 31
Practitioners analyse a survey on how law firms prove value to their clients and reflect on why the concept can be hard to pin down
Gift this article