Germany: Litigation, Mediation & Arbitration

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.

The Munich Central Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical procedural and substantive questions in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039. The court examined the burden of proof required to establish lack of entitlement under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the court's discretion to assess dependent claims in stand-alone revocation proceedings, and the evidentiary value of Wayback Machine screenshots for proving public availability of online prior art.

The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addresses parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving dental implant technology patent EP 3 402 420 B1. The case involves Versah LLC asserting patent rights against multiple defendants across nine European jurisdictions, with one defendant withdrawing following settlement while others continue to contest both infringement claims and patent validity.

This case examines the liability of an EU Authorized Representative under the Medical Device Regulation as an intermediary in patent infringement proceedings, even when they are not direct infringers. The court addresses critical procedural questions including deemed acceptance of jurisdiction, the consequences of non-attendance at oral hearings, and the discretion to refuse stays despite pending CJEU referrals.

The Düsseldorf Local Division partially upheld a patent relating to multimedia content sharing in peer-to-peer configurations and found indirect infringement by Disney's streaming service. The decision addresses critical issues of claim construction, patent validity, and procedural aspects while applying established UPC case law on inventive step testing.

The Munich Central Division of the Unified Patent Court addressed critical procedural and substantive questions in a revocation action concerning European Patent EP 4 226 039. The court examined the burden of proof required to establish lack of entitlement under Art. 138(1)(e) EPC, the court's discretion to assess dependent claims in stand-alone revocation proceedings, and the evidentiary value of Wayback Machine screenshots for proving public availability of online prior art.

International Arbitration Comparative Guide for the jurisdiction of Germany, check out our comparative guides section to compare across multiple countries

Germany's class action landscape is distinctive in that potential claimants have a variety of legal options, each with their own characteristics.

On 18 November 2024, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) issued a judgement that makes it easier to prove damages in the form of loss of control in connection with data protection incidents.

Violation of principle of party disposition constitutes “manifest error” The Court of First Instance is strictly bound by the relief requested according to Art. 76(1) UPCA and cannot award more than is requested. In case a court awards more than is requested (e.g. change of “and”-warning into “or”-disclaimer) this constitutes a manifest error under Art. 76(1) UPCA (cf. Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_388/2024, Sibio v. Abbott).

Two brothers in Germany have been sentenced to prison terms exceeding three years each for illegally exporting engineering equipment and machinery to Russia. The convictions stem from 65 shipments worth €833,000 that were routed through Turkey and Kyrgyzstan, with the equipment ultimately used in weapons manufacturing.

The Court of Appeal examines procedural and substantive issues arising from parallel infringement and revocation proceedings involving European Patent EP 3 356 109, with jurisdictional implications across multiple European states. The case involves complex questions of court procedure, patent validity challenges, and the application of the Unified Patent Court Agreement provisions.