Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

Patent Claims Must Be Reviewed Independently by Infringement and Nullity Courts According to the German Federal Court of Justice

By Benjamin Beck & Dr. Ulrich Worm on August 18, 2015
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

In Germany, questions of patent infringement and validity are (somewhat controversially) tried separately in different courts. While the Federal Patent Court has exclusive jurisdiction over actions for nullity (section 81(4) of the Patent Act) with a possible appeal to the Federal Court of Justice, infringement proceedings are dealt with by the civil divisions of the Regional Courts (section 143(1) of the Patent Act). Decisions of the Regional Courts may be appealed to the Higher Regional Courts and, from there, to the Federal Court of Justice. Thus, in both nullity and infringement proceedings the Federal Court of Justice is the court of last Resort.

The dualistic system leading to a bifurcation of validity and infringement proceedings is particularly significant when both lines are working the same case from different angles. It is common practice for parties accused of patent infringement to challenge the patent’s validity before the Federal Patent Court. If the Federal Patent Court, subject to an appeal, declares the patent null and void in its entirety, the infringement court will dismiss any claim that the patent has been infringed. However, it has been unclear to what extent the reasoning of the Federal Court of Justice in nullity proceedings shall have binding effect for courts in parallel infringement proceedings if the patent is upheld, or only partly declared void. This particularly concerns the Federal Court of Justice’s interpretation of patent claims. On 2 June 2015, the Federal Court of Justice (X ZR 103/13) stated that an infringement court has to interpret patent claims independently. While it is established case law that the methodology of claim construction must be the same in nullity and infringement proceedings (X ZR 7/00), the infringement court shall, in neither law nor fact, be bound by the interpretation of the claims by the Federal Court of Justice in a parallel nullity proceeding. The construction of a patent claim was once again expressly characterized as a question of law. Thus, each court considering the claims has to conduct an independent legal analysis.

Photo of Benjamin Beck Benjamin Beck

Benjamin Beck is an associate in Mayer Brown’s Düsseldorf office and a member of the Intellectual Property practice.

Publications

Post GDPR Enforcement in Germany — A Sneak Peek, in: Privacy & Data Protection Journal (PDP), 2019, No. 5, p. 16-17, with Dr. Ulrich…

Benjamin Beck is an associate in Mayer Brown’s Düsseldorf office and a member of the Intellectual Property practice.

Publications

Post GDPR Enforcement in Germany — A Sneak Peek, in: Privacy & Data Protection Journal (PDP), 2019, No. 5, p. 16-17, with Dr. Ulrich Worm

Annotation to Higher Regional Court of Berlin (Kammergericht Berlin), Germany, Judgment of 25 September 2018 — (4) 161 Ss 28/18 (35/18), in: Europäische Zeitschrift für Wirtschaftsrecht (EuZW), 2019, No. 1, p. 42-46, with Dr. Dominik König

Die Wirksamkeit von sog. „Nicht-Einsatz-Klauseln“ für den Wettbewerb der Fußball-Bundesliga, in: Zeitschrift für Sport und Recht (SpuRt), 2019, No. 1, p. 2-6, with Patrick Schulz

Bitcoin and Money, in: Leslie Thompson, Jean-Toussaint Pindi, Stephanie Amar-Flood (ed.), Anglais appliqué: Economie, Gestion, Droit, AES, 4th ed. 2018, p. 44-45

GDPR Implications for Blockchain and Distributed Ledger Technologies, in: SA Financial Regulation Journal, 19.06.2018, with Dr. Ulrich Worm

Yoga and Copyright, in: WIPO Magazine, 2017, No. 3, p. 44-45, with Konstantin von Werder

Annotation to Administrative Court of Frankfurt am Main (Verwaltungsgericht Frankfurt), Germany, Judgment of 31 October 2016 — 1 K 2903/15.F, in: Kommunikation & Recht (K&R), 2017, No. 2, p. 142-144, with Dr. Dominik König

IP scenarios in a Brexit world, in: World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), 18.07.2016, with Dr. Ulrich Worm

Судебная практика в Германии / Court practice in Germany, in: Интеллектуальная собственность Казахстана (Intellectual property of Kazakhstan), 2016, No. 1, p. 13-16, with Ana Elisa Bruder and Konstantin von Werder

Oktoberfest for the UPC?, in: World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR), 24.03.2016, with Dr. Ulrich Worm

Die immaterialgüterrechtliche Schutzfähigkeit von „Affen-Selfies“, in: Zeitschrift für Urheber- und Medienrecht (ZUM), Vol. 60 (2016), No. 1, p. 34-38, with Dominik König

Bitcoins als Gegenstand von sekundären Leistungspflichten. Erfassung dem Grunde und der Höhe nach, in: Archiv für die civilistische Praxis (AcP), Vol. 215 (2015), No. 5, p. 655-682, with Dominik König

Annotation to CJEU, Judgment of 22 October 2015 — C‑264/14 — David Hedqvist, in: Umsatzsteuer-Rundschau (UR), 2015, No. 22, p. 864-871, with Dominik König

Court considers likelihood of confusion between word marks using same letters in different order, in: World Trademark Review Daily, 25.09.2015, with Konstantin von Werder

Do Bitcoins Fulfil the Classic Economic Functions of Money? An Analysis and its Legal Implications, published online on lichter-filmfest.de on 09.03.2015

Bitcoins als Geld im Rechtssinne, in: Neue Juristische Wochenschrift (NJW), Vol. 68 (2015), No. 9, p. 580-586

Bitcoin: Der Versuch einer vertragstypologischen Einordnung von kryptographischem Geld, in: JuristenZeitung (JZ), Vol. 70 (2015), No. 3, p. 130-138, with Dominik König

Klinische und rechtliche Aspekte einer Abstinenzkontrolle unter besonderer Berücksichtigung kontinuierlicher transdermaler Alkoholmessung, in: Blutalkohol – Alcohol, Drugs and Behavior (BA), Vol. 50 (2013), No. 4, p. 153-167

Elektronische Fußfessel – Fluch oder Segen der Kriminalpolitik?, in: Schriftenreihe der Stiftung der Hessischen Rechtsanwaltschaft, Vol. 2 (2011), p. 65-94

Read more about Benjamin BeckEmail
Show more Show less
Photo of Dr. Ulrich Worm Dr. Ulrich Worm

Ulrich Worm is a partner in the Frankfurt office of Mayer Brown and heads the German Intellectual Property practice. His practice focuses on technology related advice.

Ulrich advises clients in IP related matters, including patent, trade secrets, design right, trademark and copyright matters…

Ulrich Worm is a partner in the Frankfurt office of Mayer Brown and heads the German Intellectual Property practice. His practice focuses on technology related advice.

Ulrich advises clients in IP related matters, including patent, trade secrets, design right, trademark and copyright matters as well as on licensing, co-operation and other technology transfer agreements. He represents clients in patent infringement and nullity proceedings and in trade secrets litigation cases before courts in Germany. In addition to litigating IP cases before German courts, he coordinates pan-European and cross-Atlantic litigation cases. Further to his IP litigation practice, Ulrich advises on patent related matters such as patent license and other technology transfer agreements and is experienced in fighting counterfeiting of patent, design right and trademark protected products.

His practice further covers IT-related matters, including advising on cloud services, software licensing agreements, SaaS agreements, software development projects, e-commerce, and related data protection and privacy questions.

Read Ulrich’s full bio.

Read more about Dr. Ulrich WormEmail
Show more Show less
  • Posted in:
    Intellectual Property
  • Blog:
    All About IP
  • Organization:
    Mayer Brown

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo