"Danger of delay" is not a requirement for the issuance of an ex parte inspection order. The inspection order need not to be filed immediately after the patent owner has acquired knowledge that the…
Part 1 of the drama with the title "You Shall not Lie" is covered by a previous post.Part 2 has been briefly summarized two weeks ago by Miriam.
It appeared to me that the potential consequences of…
by Miriam Büttner
This is a follow-up to the article of my colleague, Eike Schaper, of 17 August 2010 in which he refers to a ruling of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeal concerning the value in patent…
This decision deals with the scope of the obligation of a plaintiff to concentrate actions in one case if these are directed against the same defendant regarding the same infringing device, but based…
In case of actual or potential discrepancies between claim language and the patent description which might allow a broader interpretation the Supreme Court confirms that the claim may not be…
The Court of Appeal discusses and builds on its previous case law on patentability regarding the issue of whether the subject matter is considered a technical invention. The Court emphasizes that it…
by Stephan von Petersdorff-Campen
In my post of 28 April 2011, I reported that the Düsseldorf Appellate Court (Oberlan-desgericht) does not require urgency for inspection orders, whereas urgency is…
In this blog, we reported earlier about a new nullity action initiated in 2010 against the German supplementary protection certificate (SPC) for enantiomeric escitalopram and the judgment of the…
This blog relates to the decision "Lungenfunktionsmessgerät" (lung function analyser) by the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) of Duesseldorf (judgement of 24 February 2011, docket no. I-2 U…
The Court of Appeal Duesseldorf held that, provided that the alleged infringer proves a legitimate interest in confidentiality, the presentation of the expert opinion to the patentee itself depends…
