Browse Options
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.

Forfeiture of Claims for Patent Infringement

Under the legal principle of forfeiture of claims a patentee can deprive himself of claims for patent infringement if he asserts them in legal proceedings at such a late stage (time factor) that the infringer from an objective perspective could trust that he would not anymore be subjected to the claims and has made dispositions in that trust (circumstance factor). The Supreme Court has set a very high threshold for both factors such that the forfeiture defense has had no practical relevance.

Recently, the Supreme Court did, however, reject to hear a revision against a decision by which the Dusseldorf appeal court has rejected the patentee’s claims for patent infringement due to forfeiture. T [...]

Parents are liable for their children – Does this also apply to companies?

A recent decision of the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) Düsseldorf now confirms that a holding company cannot easily dive away under the patent infringing activities of its subsidiaries.


Many companies are designed in the form of a group, having a holding company at the top and a number of subsidiaries which are directly or indirectly owned by the holding company. Different working areas are split between the companies of the group.

If one of these subsidiaries infringes a patent, the question arises whether and to what extent the holding itself is responsible for the infringement. Is the holding liable to compensation of damages? Does the holding have to render accoun [...]

Mannheim Regional Court on the Liability of a Foreign Supplier under German Patent Law

The Mannheim Regional Court decided on March 8, 2013 (court docket: 7 O 139/12) that a supplier which is located abroad is regularly only liable for participating in patent-infringing acts in Germany if the foreign supplier learns, e.g. by means of a warning letter, that its supply of products to the German market may result in a patent infringement under German law and if the supplier does not refrain from further shipments into Germany.

Danisco v. Novozymes, Court of Appeal The Hague (Gerechtshof Den Haag), 26 February 2013

The Court of Appeal held that the duty to compensate the successful party’s legal costs in intellectual property proceedings, pursuant to Art. 14 of the Enforcement directive, also applies to invalidity claims, counterclaims and defenses by the alleged infringing party threatened with patent enforcement. To deny such compensation in respect of nullity claims or defenses that constitute an important defense against enforcements of intellectual property rights would be contrary to Article 6 ECHR.

A summary of this case will be posted on

Germeau Carrière v. Core Distribution and Urban Sporting Goods, 21 February 2012

The Court of Appeal of Liège confirmed the President of the Commercial Court’s finding that the appellant had committed patent infringement, and ordered the reimbursement of costs of the saisie-contrefaçon (seizure of evidence), which were not considered damages but as procedural costs.

Click here for the full text of this case.

A summary of this case will be posted on

Contributors, Authors, Books, & More...