JURISDICTION REPORT: GERMANY
INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF DOMESTIC PATENTS ABROAD
Andreas Kramer Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben
Patent protection is restricted to a certain territory; there is no extra- territorial protection. However, under some circumstances, actions abroad may constitute direct or indirect infringement of domestic patents. In a recent decision, German’s Federal Court of
Justice
(Bundesgerichtshof) confirmed a judgment of the Karlsruhe Appeal Court that said a foreign (Chinese) supplier was liable for indirect patent infringement in Germany through its actions in China. In previous decisions, the Federal Court of Justice held that foreign
suppliers delivering products from one foreign country to another may be liable for direct patent infringement in Germany (section 9, German Patent Act) if they knew about the patent and Germany as final destination for the goods (Funkuhr I). However, this case does not directly apply to indirect infringements, due to different prerequisites. According to section 10(1), German Patent Act, which deals with
indirect infringements: “A patent shall have the further effect that any third party not having
the consent of the patentee shall be prohibited from offering or supplying within the territory to which this act applies to any other persons, other than such persons authorised to use the patented invention, means relating to an essential element of said invention for use of the invention within the territory to which this act applies, if said third party knows or it is obvious from the circumstances that such means are suitable and intended for use of the invention.” Unlike with direct infringements, section 10 requires a “double
domestic context”: the offering for sale or the supplying of the means, and the intended use of the means, both have to take place within Germany. In this regard, the Federal Court of Justice, in its Funkuhr II decision
held that indirect infringement also arises when means essential for a protected invention are supplied from Germany to foreign countries if the goods contribute to the manufacture of an invention intended for Germany. However, so far, it has not been decided by the Federal Court of Justice whether indirect infringement may also arise where the delivery of the means takes place between foreign countries. In fact, this was the situation in the case at hand. Te defendant was
a Chinese original equipment manufacturer. It produced and distributed MP2 devices that were said to relate to essential elements for the patented process concerning transmitting digitised block-coded audio signals using scale factors. Te Chinese company sold and delivered the devices within China to a German and a Chinese customer, which both shipped the products to Germany. Te plaintiff was, however, unable to prove that the defendant had directly delivered the products to Germany. Te District Court of Mannheim denied indirect infringement based on the “double domestic context”, because there was no loss of control
www.worldipreview.com
over the devices in Germany—only abroad. Te Karlsruhe Appeal Court set aside the district court’s decision, holding that the principles laid down in the Funkuhr I decision should also apply to indirect patent infringements. It reasoned that the “double domestic context” does not require loss
of control in Germany, as long as the defendant knew that the means relating to the essential element for the patented process was destined for the German market. Te Federal Court of Justice confirmed these findings. It held that
the defendant was aware of the fact that the German and the Chinese customer were both delivering the devices to Germany. It highlighted that the German company, which was itself a customer of the Chinese company, was explicitly mentioned on the defendant’s internet site as a distributor for the European market. Terefore, although the defendant sold the devices and disposed control in China, the court found indirect infringement of the German part of the European patent at stake. Tis ruling may be seen as complementing the previous Funkuhr
decisions and extending the liability of foreign companies in cases of indirect patent infringement. Te decision is also interesting as it deals in detail with the
requirements for means relating to an essential element of the invention in cases where the means is not already part of the patent claim but rather a pre-condition for making use of the invention.
Andreas Kramer is an attorney-at-law at Krieger Mes & Graf v. der Groeben. He can be contacted at:
andreas.kramer@
krieger-mes.de
World Intellectual Property Review May/June 2015 79
“ALTHOUGH THE DEFENDANT SOLD THE DEVICES AND DISPOSED CONTROL IN CHINA, THE COURT FOUND INDIRECT INFRINGEMENT OF THE GERMAN PART OF THE EUROPEAN PATENT AT STAKE.”
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 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100