JURISDICTION REPORT: GERMANY
NEGATIVE STATEMENTS IN PATENT APPLICATIONS
Jens Künzel
Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben
A recent decision of Germany’s Federal Supreme Court in Fischdosendeckel (Fish Tin Cap) concerns the somewhat strange case of negative statements about a competitor’s products in the specification of a patent.
It is, of course, common to describe the prior art and its downsides and disadvantages in the specification of a patent. Tis is one of the indispensable elements of a patent specification, because the technical problem and its solution may not be described and disclosed with the required clarity if the disadvantages of the prior art are not expressly mentioned. Te prior art does not only consist of prior patent documents, but also of products that were published and put on the market before the patent filing. It is therefore not unusual for a competitor’s product to be mentioned in a patent speci- fication. Negative statements about its functions and/or constructive details are also common.
Te facts of the Fischdosendeckel decision concerned several such statements that a competitor of the applicant criticised as amounting to unfair competition. Tis plaintiff sued the patent applicant for injunctive relief and deletion of the respective passages in the patent specification. Te Dresden Court of Appeal granted these claims.
Upon revision, the Federal Supreme Court reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. It held that such an action was not admissible. Te court referred to a line of decisions that held that injunctive relief against negative statements made in the course of court or administrative proceedings could not be granted for want of a need for legal relief, since these statements and their ‘treatment’ should be leſt to the courts and bodies concerned with the proceedings in which these statements were originally made. Te court therefore recognised a legitimate interest to make statements in the course of an argument for defensive purposes, in court or administrative proceedings, without the risk that an opponent could attempt to prevent such statements by claiming unfair competition or infringement of personal rights.
Tese basic rules were also confirmed in the context of negative statements contained in patent specifications. Te German Patent Act contains provisions for the circumstances in which parts of the patent specification can be rectified or deleted. A patent application, whether German or Euro- pean, sets in motion a special administrative proceeding in which the patentability of the patent is examined. Tird parties may interfere in some respects at this stage, but they do not have the right to challenge decisions or certain statements in the application. Te Patent Act further provides for third parties to file an opposition within a certain time aſter publication of the granted patent. Te Patent Act also outlines the grounds on which a nullity action against the patent can be based.
56 World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2010
“ PARTIES MUST, AT LEAST IN PRINCIPLE, BE ABLE TO DEFEND THEMSELVES, OR ASSERT CLAIMS, AS THEY SEE FIT, WITHOUT A RISK THAT STATEMENTS MADE DURING THESE PROCEEDINGS COULD BE ATTACKED IN SEPARATE PROCEEDINGS ON UNFAIR COMPETITION GROUNDS OR FOR INFRINGEMENT OF PERSONAL RIGHTS”
Te court therefore held that the provisions for examination, opposition and nullity proceedings in the Patent Act are exhaustive. Tese provisions deal with the procedural possibilities of a third party to challenge a granted patent. Terefore, there was no legitimate need for injunctive relief with regard to negative statements closely connected to the invention, as third- party concerns may only be raised in the proceedings provided for in the Patent Act. Te court expressly leſt open whether an exception to this rule would be appropriate in cases where negative statements did not have a connection to the invention described in the patent specification, as the facts of the case did not raise this problem.
Tis case sheds some further light on the relationship between unfair competition claims against statements and the procedural possibilities of the parties in court or administrative proceedings. Te court did not challenge the long-standing rule that parties must, at least in principle, be able to defend themselves, or assert claims, as they see fit, and use appropriate means to achieve the desired procedural result without a risk that statements made during these proceedings could be attacked in separate proceedings on unfair competition grounds or for infringement of personal rights. However, the court did not rule out that a third party may seek injunctive relief against libellous statements if these statements do not have a connection to the invention.
Jens Künzel LLM is a partner at Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben. He can be contacted at:
jens.kuenzel@krieger-mes.de
www.worldipreview.com
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80