Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
CommunitySub-MenuPublishersChannelsProductsSub-MenuBlog ProBlog PlusBlog PremierMicrositeSyndication PortalsAboutContactResourcesSubscribeSupport
Join
Search
Close

Germany Passes Law to Restrict Injunctive Relief in Patent Cases by Proportionality Considerations

By Benjamin Beck & Dr. Ulrich Worm on June 28, 2021
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn

The German legislature (Bundestag and Bundesrat) has passed a bill that will change German patent law. The bill will enter into force soon. Under the new law, injunctions in patent infringement cases will be restricted by proportionality considerations in individual cases. Further, stronger procedural safeguards will become available for the disclosure of confidential information during patent infringement proceedings.

Permanent Injunctions in Patent Infringement Cases

Unlike in many other jurisdictions, German courts have always granted permanent injunctions as a de facto automatic remedy if a patent was found to be infringed. While courts could restrict injunctions in patent cases by equitable considerations in individual cases, this corrective has rarely been applied. The new law will limit injunctions through a formal proportionality test whereby a claim for injunctive relief might be considered disproportionate if it would cause an extreme hardship for the infringer or for third parties. In explaining the reason for requiring the test, the lawmakers gave the example of a complex product, where the enforcement of a patent covering only a minor component may keep the entire product off the market, causing extreme hardship.

While balancing the interests of all stakeholders involved, courts are required to consider the principles of good faith. The lawmakers explained that this might mean that courts should take into account whether the infringer itself has acted in good faith, i.e., by taking reasonable precautions to avoid patent infringement, e.g., by means of a freedom-to-operate analysis.

Interplay between Infringement and Invalidity Proceedings

The new law sets out a change of procedural rules. One of the peculiarities of the German patent system is that infringement and nullity proceedings are tried in different courts. Decisions on infringement and validity might therefore not necessarily be rendered at the same time, which might lead to an “injunction gap” where an injunction is granted before the validity of the patent is determined. In order to better align infringement and invalidity proceedings, the new law stipulates that “indicative assessments” (“Qualifizierte Hinweise”) issued by the invalidity courts about their view of the factual and legal considerations could also be provided to the infringement courts ex officio. Currently, such qualified indications are only provided to the parties to the nullity proceedings.

Procedural Safeguards for Confidential Information

Lastly, in order to strengthen the protection of trade secrets, the new law provides for the application of certain portions of the German Trade Secrets Act in patent infringement proceedings. For example, courts may now order everyone involved in a proceeding, including lawyers, witnesses, and experts, to treat certain information as confidential. Court-ordered confidentiality obligations continue to apply after the proceedings have ended, and their breach can be subject to fines of up to EUR100,000 or detention. Under the previous law, extensive procedural safeguards for trade secrets were only available in cases of trade secret misappropriation.

Possible Implications on Current Practice

The impact that the new law might have on current court practice remains to be seen. Since the new language introduced into the injunction section was essentially derived from existing case law (in particular, the German Federal Court of Justice’s “Wärmetauscher” decision, Case X ZR 114/13), the new law will likely not revolutionize the existing practice of granting injunctions. In particular, the law makers expressed a clear intention that a patent owner’s right to an injunction shall only be limited in rare individual cases.

 

This article was originally published on AllAboutIP – Mayer Brown’s blog on relevant developments in the fields of intellectual property and unfair competition law.

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
  • Article: View Original Source

LexBlog, Inc. logo
Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
Real Lawyers
99 Park Row
  • About LexBlog
  • Careers
  • Press
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Privacy Policy
  • Editorial Policy
  • Disclaimer
  • Terms of Service
  • RSS Terms of Service
  • Products
  • Blog Pro
  • Blog Plus
  • Blog Premier
  • Microsite
  • Syndication Portals
  • LexBlog Community
  • 1-800-913-0988
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
  • Resource Center

New to the Network

  • International Dispute Resolution
  • China Law Update Blog
  • Law of The Ledger
  • Antitrust Law Blog
  • Your ERISA Watch
Copyright © 2022, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo