Menu
Browse Options
Flupirtin-Maleat, Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (Oberlandesgericht), 17 January 2013 ”

In preliminary injunction proceedings: to fulfil the requirement of urgency a patentee must actively and with determination enforce the patent. A patentee does not have to wait for the outcome of nullity proceedings if a generic company has launched an infringing product on the market, thereby causing irreparable harm to patentee.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Vorbereitender Besichtigungsanspruch, Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Hamm, 31 January 2013 ”

As a rule, an applicant has a right to inspection of respondent’s premises in order to prepare a claim for damages due to illegal exploitation of secret know-how. The applicant must designate construction plans which are to be inspected, otherwise the request for inspection will not be sufficiently precise and clear under Sec. 253(2) CCP. The applicant must prove a “certain likelihood” that its claim to damages based on illegal exploitation of secret know-how is justified. The right to inspection shall not allow an applicant to conduct a “fishing expedition”.

A full summary of this case has been published on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Milling Method (Fräsverfahren), Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 7 May 2013 ”

(1) If a plaintiff can prove there was an “offering” of means for the patented purposes, it can be assumed that the means were also delivered for those purposes, and that therefore the plaintiff has a right to claim damages and the provision of information due to indirect infringement.
(2) When a patent is assigned during pending patent infringement proceedings, the right of the assignee to claim damages shall arise starting on the date of the assignment agreement, and not on the date of registration.

The full summary of this case has been posted on Kluwer IP Law.

[...]
Wundverband, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 19 February 2013

If the patentee has granted an exclusive license after filing an infringement action, an exclusive licensee is (in part) a legal successor of the patentee. Therefore, as long as the patentee’s claims are pending at another German court, the exclusive licensee has no right to sue with regard to the same subject matter due to the force of res judicata of the judgment against the legal successor and the lis pendens rule. The final decision against the patentee will have binding effect against the licensee as well.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
Folien Fischer et al. v. Ritrama, Court of Justice of the European Union (Court of Justice of the European Union), 25 October 2012

Jurisdiction at the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur pursuant to Article 5 (3) of Regulation EC/44/2001 can be established in a negative declaratory action even though this action seeks to declare the absence of liability in tort, as long as the relevant linking conditions are fulfilled.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
Clinique happy, Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof), 25 April 2012

The uninterrupted transit of goods designated with a trademark that is protected in Germany does not constitute an infringement of the trademark right according to German law. Should the trademark be protected in the country of destination, a foreign IP right will not be protected, owing to the principle of territory of property rights, as “property” under German tort law. Consequently, transit does not constitute a partial tortious act under German tort law. A precautionary claim to cease and desist import may exist pursuant to the law of the country of destination.

A summary of this case will be posted on http://www.Kluweriplaw.com

[...]
Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...