A validation agreement between the European Patent Organisation and Georgia entered into force on January 15, 2024. Thus, it is now possible for European patent applications and patents granted by the EPO to be validated in the Republic of Georgia. For more details, see the EPO website.
BGH on damages (patent infringement)
A recent decision by the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) (decision of 14 November 2023 – X ZR 30/21 – cushioning conversion machine) deals with damages in patent infringement proceedings in Germany. An English translation of the decision was made available on LinkedIn by plaintiff’s representative (Müller-Stoy of Bardehle).
The German Federal Supreme Court held that damages, when calculated based on infringer’s profits, generally are to take into account all profits that are causally related to the infringement of the patent. This applies even when such profits are generated by tsale of consumables or other ancillary devices or services, which by themselves do not consitute an act of direct infringement (§ 9 German Patent Act) or contributory infringement (§ 10 German Patent Act). All that is required is that the infringer’s profits are causally related to the infringement. An example are consumables sold by the infringer as a result of the patent infringement; the profits are to be taken into account even when such consumables do not contribute to the technical effect of the patent and/or do not interact with the non-obvious features of the claim.
This decision can be expected to have major impact on patent litigation in Europe and will add to the attractiveness of Germany as a venue for patent litigation.
Claim construction at the UPC
In decision UPC_CFI_292/2023, the Local Division (LD) Munich of 20/12/2023, the UPC rejected a request for a preliminary injunction. According to the first headnote of the decision, claim amendments made during prosecution can aid the claim construction . In the decided case, the LD Munich was of the opinion that a claim amendment introduced during prosecution defined an original claim feature in greater specificity and, thus, had to be construed more narrowly than suggested by claimant.
In an article published on LinkedIn, a fellow German patent attorney remarked that he considers the first headnote of this decision to represent a significant change as compared to the national German claim construction practice. I don’t think that the decision of the LD Munich is a significant departure from German national practice. While German courts have traditionally not relied on file history estoppel, several decisions handed down by the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in recent years – such as BGH decision of 14/06/2016 – X ZR 29/15 – Pemetrexed and BGH decision of 10/05/2011 – X ZR 16/09 – Okklusionsvorrichtung (“occlusion device”) – held that claim amendments made during prosecution can be a useful tool for claim construction. The decision by the LD Munich appears to be in line with this German national case law (which in itself represents a shift towards the national practice of other EPC contracting states that apply the principles of file history estoppel).
UPC trends
Juve Patent has published an interesting article (“Is the UPC trending towards bifurcation, but with a twist?”), which discusses initial trends of how the UPC deals with infringement actions and counterclaims for revocation
EPO Deep Tech Finder
The EPO has deployed its Deep Tech Finder tool. The Deep Tech Finder is a tool for finding investment-ready European startups that have patent applications at the EPO.
More information is available at the EPO’s FAQ page.
Bidding farewell to the EPO’s 10-day-rule
The EPO’s 10-day-rule will be abandoned from 1 November 2023. A safeguard mechanism will be effective in case a document is received late (more than 7 days late), with the burden of proof in case of disputed notifications being with the EPO. The new regulation applies to documents notified on or after 1 November 2023. See OJ EPO 2023, A29 for more details and some examples.
Enlarged Board of Appeal on transfer of priority right
The recent decisionby the Enlarged Board of Appeal G1/22 and G2/22 has made it easier to demonstrate a valid transfer of priority right. This is good news for patent applicants and patentees who may have struggled with the previous requirements for demonstrating a valid transfer. According to the EPO’s summary of the key considerations, “entitlement to priority is presumed to exist if the formal requirements for claiming priority are fulfilled. This presumption is justified because (i) all parties involved normally have an interest that an application may benefit from a priority right, (ii) there are no formal requirements for the transfer of priority rights, and (iii) the applicant of the priority application has to provide support to the applicant claiming priority (e.g. by providing unpublished documents).”
However, it is important to note that the time of transfer must still pre-date the subsequent filing. This means that while the process of demonstrating a valid transfer may be easier, the timing of the transfer is still crucial. More details can be found in the many comments that were already published on these decisions. See, e.g., the DeltaPatents Blog on decisions G1/22 and G2/22.
EPO Examination Matters ’23
The EPO hosts a great hybrid format conference Examination Matters 2023. The event is very interactive and provides lively discussions on topics of practical relevance for patent practitioners (both substantive and procedural). Check out the conference materials once they become available.
Inspection in infringement proceedings
The German Federal Supreme Court’s recent decision of August 1, 2023, X ZB 9/21 – Aesthetic treatment (“Ästhetische Behandlung”) relates to the balance of confidentiality interests and effective enforcement of a patent or utility model in independent evidentiary procedures.
An expert opinion was prepared based on an inspection of a potentially infringing product. This Supreme Court decision relates to a first instance court order on the provision of the expert opinion to applicant (i.e., the patent or utility model owner who requested the inspection). The Supreme Court held that such an order is appealable by means of immediate appeal (“sofortige Beschwerde”). According to this Supreme Court decision, immediate appeal is available as a legal remedy also when the first instance court orders that the expert opinion be disclosed to applicant despite the respondent (i.e., the alleged infringer) asserting a confidentiality interest (due to the expert opinion including information on trade secrets).
The Supreme Court also held that the respondent has to actively assert its confidentiality interest even if the Patent Office (here: the GPTO) has already provided a negative preliminary opinion on the validity of the asserted utility model or patent, in order to challenge the provision of the expert opinion to applicant.
The importance of this decision is evidenced by the fact that it will be published in the official collection of decisions of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGHZ).
Prior use rights in Germany
In order to rely on a prior use right, the holder of the prior use right must have had in its possession an embodiment falling within the scope of the invention claimed in the asserted patent or utility model. Consistent jurisprudence by German courts has held that there are limitations on the modifications that are still covered by the prior use right. Modifications are generally not permissible if they constitute a more severe act of using the invention claimed in the patent or utility model than the original embodiment that was conceived by the prior use rights holder prior to the effective date of the patent or utility model.
A rule of thumb frequently invoked in infringement proceedings is that a modification is generally not permissible within the ambits of the prior use right if the embodiment as modified falls within the scope of a dependent claim of the patent or utility model, while the original embodiment did not. See, e.g., the discussion of the modified embodiment considered in OLG Düsseldorf, decision of 24.6.2021, 2 U 116/05 – Saugfähige Faserstoffbahn (“absorbent fiber web”).
The German Federal Supreme Court held in its recent decision of 20.6.2023, X ZR 61/21 – Faserstoffbahn (“fiber web”) that there are cases in which a modification which implements features of a dependent claim for the first time may still be covered by the prior use right (even though the embodiment as conceived prior to the effective date of the patent or utility model did not implement the features of the dependent claims). More specifically, the German Federal Supreme Court held that this can be the case if (a) the modification is not associated with a particular technical effect discussed in the patent or utility model, or (b) the modification would have been considered by the skilled person as a matter of routine as of the effective date of the patent or utility model.
The German Federal Supreme Court decision “Fasetstoffbahn” also addresses interesting procedural aspects related to specifics of utility model law.