Tag: case law

Posted on

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.

Posted on

UPC time considerations

The UPC has been in operation for 100 days. One of the interesting questions in the early case law relates to whether the time of day is to be taken into consideration when determining which of several events happened first. In a webinar, the colleagues of Hoffmann Eitle have provided insights on such a situation, in which a revocation action (with the central division) and an infringement action (with a local division) were filed on the same day but with a time delay of 19 minutes between them. In the proceedings dealing with the admissibility of the revocation action, the Court had to consider whether time of day is to be taken into consideration for determining which action was filed first (with the deciding decision apparently being of the opinion that time of day matters is relevant when determining which action was filed first, in the interest of legal certainty).

This rationale is interesting in consideration of the fact that (i) in many other jurisdictions, it is only the date that matters (and some Courts, such as the German Federal Patent Court, do not appear to be set up for determining at which time of day an action is received when filed in paper form); (ii) may stakeholders are inclined to adopt a “first to act” strategy (in particular if they believe a local division to be more patentee-friendly than the central division, as also discussed in Hoffmann Eitle’s webinar today), with the time of day being potentially decisive for who was first to act; and (iii) the “smallest unit of time” for determining which event happened first (time of day or date only) can be relevant for scenarios other than infringement / revocation actions, such as determining whether an opt out or UPC revocation was effective earlier (relevant for the admissibility of a UPC revocation action).