European Patent Office
1994

3 - March

Overview

Index
1-2 - January - February
3 - March
4 - April
5 - May
6 - June
7 - July
8 - August
9 - September
10 - October
11 - November
12 - December
Supplements / Special editions
Supplement to OJ 4/1994
Supplement to OJ 6/1994
Supplement to OJ 9/1994
Special editions

    Page 217

    Citation: OJ EPO 1994, 217

    Online publication date: 31.3.1994

    INFORMATION FROM THE CONTRACTING / EXTENSION STATES
    DE Germany

    Judgment of the Düsseldorf Landgericht (Regional Court) dated 16 March 1993

    (4 O 137/92)1

    Headword: Signalübertragungsvorrichtung (Signal transmission device)

    Article II, section 8, IntPatÜG2

    Keyword: "Ban on double protection - loss of effect of a German patent where a European patent with the same priority has been granted for Germany"

    Headnote

    1. In infringement proceedings, a defendant facing claims arising from a German patent can invoke the objection that the patent in suit has partly or wholly lost its effect, on the grounds that a European patent with the same priority has been granted for the same invention (Article II, section 8, IntPatÜG.)

    2. The loss of effect, which does not impinge on the formal legal validity of the German patent and only nullifies the exclusive rights conferred by the patent to use the invention and prevent others from doing so, applies to the entire extent of protection conferred by the European patent with the same priority, including equivalent forms of infringement, inferior embodiments, etc.

    3. A case invoking Article II, section 8, IntPatÜG cannot be brought in the form of a nullity suit but only via a request to pronounce legal consequences, inaccordance with Article II, section 8, paragraph 3, of that law3. However, if the scope of protection conferred by the German patent exceeds that conferred by the European patent, the remaining portion of the patent can be challenged via a nullity suit, especially where the grounds for nullity relate to lack of novelty and level of invention. With regard to the level of invention, the issue at stake is not whether the remaining portion of the patent is distinguished from the European patent by an inventive step, but whether- and only whether - its subject-matter contains an inventive step vis-à-vis the state of the art.

    DE 1/94

     

     

    1 The full text of the decision, which is not yet final, is published in GRUR 1993, 812.

    2 1976 Law on International Patent Treaties, Bundesgesetzblatt 1976, II, 649.

    3 Editor's note: paragraph 3 of Article II, section 8, was deleted by the law of 20 December 1991, BGBI. 1991, II, 1354.

    Service & support

    • Website updates
    • Availability of online services
    • FAQ
    • Publications
    • Procedural communications
    • Contact us
    • Subscription centre
    • Official holidays
    • Glossary

    Jobs & careers

    Press centre

    Single Access Portal

    Procurement

    Boards of Appeal

    Facebook
    European Patent Office | EPO Jobs
    Instagram
    EuropeanPatentOffice
    Linkedin
    European Patent Office | EPO Jobs | EPO Procurement
    X (formerly Twitter)
    EPOorg | EPOjobs
    Youtube
    TheEPO
    Legal noticeTerms of useData protection and privacyAccessibility