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

Managing IP is part of Legal Benchmarking Limited, 1-2 Paris Gardens, London, SE1 8ND

Copyright © Legal Benchmarking Limited and its affiliated companies 2025

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 SHARED ros bottom lb

More from across our site

Partner Jeremy Hertzog explains how his team worked through a huge amount of disclosure from Adidas and what victory means for the firm
Evarist Kameja and Hadija Juma at Bowmans explain why a new law in Tanzania marks a significant shift in IP enforcement
In the wake of controversy surrounding Banksy’s recent London mural, AJ Park’s Thomas Huthwaite and Eloise Calder delve into the challenges street artists face in protecting their works and rights
Alex Levkin, founder of iPNOTE, discusses reshaping the filing industry through legal tech, and why practitioners’ advice should stretch beyond immediate legal needs
Cohausz & Florack, together with Krieger Mes & Graf von der Groeben, have taken action against Amazon on behalf of three VIA LA licensors
In the fourth episode of a podcast series celebrating the tenth anniversary of IP Inclusive, we discuss unconscious bias in the IP workplace and how to address it
Greg Munt, who has moved from Griffith Hack to James & Wells after four decades, hails his new firm’s approach to client service
Practitioners warn that closing the Denver regional office could trigger a domino effect, threatening local innovation and access to IP resources
Law firms are rethinking litigation strategies after USPTO director John Squires said he would take control of PTAB challenges
News of Singapore planning to streamline the licensing framework for foreign law firms and a partnership between Avanci and Xprize were also among the top talking points
Gift this article