German Federal Court of Justice on the admissibility of a nullity action lodged during parallel opposition proceedings (BGH Mautberechnung)

Note This article is my contribution to the BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report IV/2011. The article discusses the German approach to coordinating the two means available for invalidating a patent: on the on hand (German or European) opposition proceedings and national nullity proceedings on the other hand. Read the article as originally published at the BARDEHLE PAGENBERG website.

According to Section 81 (2) German Patent Act, a nullity action is inadmissible as long as parallel opposition proceedings are pending (“Principle of Subsidiarity”). In its decision “toll calculation” (decision of April 19, 2011 – Case X ZR 124/10 – Mautberechnung) the German Federal Court of Justice establishes that this also applies if the nullity action is based only on a national prior right pursuant to Art. 139 (2) EPC – which cannot be considered in parallel European opposition proceedings.

The case to be decided in “toll calculation” related to European patent 0 824 731, which concerns a method and apparatus for determining a tax for a vehicle using a positioning system. The patent was revoked during European opposition proceedings, whereupon the patentee filed an appeal against the decision to revoke the patent.

While the European opposition appeal proceedings were still pending, a national German nullity action was lodged.

The nullity action was based on the grounds of lack of novelty in view of the German patent application 44 27 392, which was filed before the priority date of the attacked patent, but published only thereafter. As a result, this document – being post-published with respect to the attacked patent – constituted prior art relevant for novelty in the German nullity action (Section 3 (2) German Patent Act). However, it could not be considered in the European opposition proceedings, since Article 54 (3) EPC does not apply to post-published German patent applications.

The German Federal Patent Court rejected the nullity action for being inadmissible pursuant to Section 81 (2) German Patent Act. Accordingly, a nullity action cannot be lodged as long as an opposition can be filed or opposition proceedings are pending (“Principle of Subsidiarity”). The Court thereby confirmed its earlier decision “radiation control” (decision of July 12, 2005 – Case X ZR 29/05 – Strahlungssteuerung), which concerned a German nullity action and a European opposition based on the same grounds. According to the Court, the principle of precedence of the opposition over the nullity procedure applied also to the present case, where the nullity action was based on a national prior right that can be considered in the national nullity procedure only.

This decision was confirmed in second instance by the German Federal Court of Justice. Accordingly, a German nullity action lodged during ongoing European opposition proceedings is inadmissible, even if the nullity action is bas…

Bitte beachten Sie: Dieser Artikel ist nicht mehr im Original verfügbar.

  • Infos zum Artikel
  • Kommentare
  • Ähnliches
  • Links

Themen: IP , Publications
Rechtsgebiet: Urheberrecht

Erschienen 9. Oktober 2011 auf http://kandidatenwiki.de/.

Sie haben eine Meinung zum Thema? Artikels kommentieren
Artikel kommentieren

BGH Mautberechnung: German Federal Court of Justice on the admissibility of a nullity action lodged during parallel opposition pro…

KandidatenWiki | 9. Oktober 2011 — Note This article is my contribution to the BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report IV/2011. The article discusses the German approac…

Recognition of US Bankruptcy Procedure

German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 5. August 2010 — KB - Washington.   The German Supreme Court in Karlsruhe, Bundesgerichtshof, ruled on October 13, 2009 on the recognition of Ameri…

Microsoft's controversal FAT patent upheld by German Federal Court of Justice

Visae Patentes | 24. April 2010 — As reported here and elsewhere, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has overtuned in his decision X ZR 27/07 dated April …

Freightforwarder not Liable for Patent Infringement

German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 29. September 2009 — CK - Washington.   Under German patent law, specifically section 9 of the patent statute, an abetter may have to cease and desist …

Biotechnological Patents: Court Of Justice Of the EU Decides Against Patent Theory Of Monsanto

IPJUR.COM | 6. Juli 2010 — Today, the European Court of Justice (former ECJ) has published the decision in Case C-428/08, reference for a preliminary ru…

A Teaching Embedded in a Technical Apparatus Exhibits "Technicality" (Federal Court of Justice Xa ZR 4/07 )

Visae Patentes | 24. November 2010 — The Codd Bottle On February 4, 2010, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) ruled in a second-instance nul…

EPO Strenghens Third Party Observations in EPO Proceedings

Visae Patentes | 6. August 2011 — In a new article titled "Einwendungen Dritter in Verfahren vor dem Europäischen Patentamt werden gestärkt" (in German, sorry; aut…

German Federal Court of Justice raises requirements for software-related inventions to overcome exclusion from patent protection

KandidatenWiki | 15. Juli 2011 — Note This article is a contribution to the BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report III/2011 discussing the most recent developments i…

Ferrero takes on UEFA over EM 2008 mark

servicemarks | 5. September 2007 — Ferrero files cancellation against UEFA's EM 2008 mark It looks as if Ferrero, a maker of chocolates (i.a. kinder products), has …

Double Trouble Hits Spammer

German American Law Journal :: American Edition | 21. Dezember 2006 — KR - Washington.   Spam EMails violate various German statutes. Most commonly, a cause of action is based on the Unfair Competitio…

PatG - Einzelnorm
BARDEHLE PAGENBERG: IP Report 2011/IV
PatG - Einzelnorm
Urteil des X. Zivilsenats vom 19.4.2011 - X ZR 124/10 -
The European Patent Convention, Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention), Part VIII Impact on national law, Chapter II Revocation and prior rights, Article 139 Prior rights and rights arising on the same date
espacenet - Bibliographic data
The European Patent Convention, Convention on the Grant of European Patents (European Patent Convention), Part II Substantive patent law, Chapter I Patentability, Article 54 Novelty
Urteil des X. Zivilsenats vom 12.7.2005 - X ZR 29/05 -