Source: http://www.bastianbest.com/bgh-mautberechnung/
Timestamp: 2013-05-22 02:55:36
Document Index: 282479227

Matched Legal Cases: ['BGH', 'BGH', 'BGH', 'Art. 139', 'Art. 139', 'BGH', 'BGH', 'Art. 139', 'BGH', 'BGH', 'BGH', 'BGH']

BGH Mautberechnung: German Federal Court of Justice on the admissibility of a nullity action lodged during parallel opposition proceedings » Bastian Best: Patentanwalt, Informatiker, Softwarepatent-Spezialist
Home /Patent-Rechtsprechung /BGH Mautberechnung: German Federal Court of Justice on the admissibility of a nullity action lodged during parallel opposition proceedingsBGH Mautberechnung: German Federal Court of Justice on the admissibility of a nullity action lodged during parallel opposition proceedings	9
Einspruch Nichtigkeit Patent-Rechtsprechung	9 Oktober 2011,
Kommentare	Dieser Artikel erschien erstmals im BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report IV/2011. Der Artikel diskutiert den deutschen Ansatz zur Koordination der zwei Mittel zur Invalidierung eines Patents: das (deutsche oder europäische) Einspruchsverfahren einerseits und das nationale Nichtigkeitsverfahren andererseits.
According to Section 81 (2) German Patent Act, a nullity action is inadmissible as long as parallel opposition proceedings are pending (“Principle of Subsidiarity”). In its decision “toll calculation” (decision of April 19, 2011 – Case X ZR 124/10 – Mautberechnung) the German Federal Court of Justice establishes that this also applies if the nullity action is based only on a national prior right pursuant to Art. 139 (2) EPC – which cannot be considered in parallel European opposition proceedings.
The case to be decided in “toll calculation” related to European patent 0 824 731, which concerns a method and apparatus for determining a tax for a vehicle using a positioning system. The patent was revoked during European opposition proceedings, whereupon the patentee filed an appeal against the decision to revoke the patent.
While the European opposition appeal proceedings were still pending, a national German nullity action was lodged.
The nullity action was based on the grounds of lack of novelty in view of the German patent application 44 27 392, which was filed before the priority date of the attacked patent, but published only thereafter. As a result, this document – being post-published with respect to the attacked patent – constituted prior art relevant for novelty in the German nullity action (Section 3 (2) German Patent Act). However, it could not be considered in the European opposition proceedings, since Article 54 (3) EPC does not apply to post-published German patent applications.
This decision was confirmed in second instance by the German Federal Court of Justice. Accordingly, a German nullity action lodged during ongoing European opposition proceedings is inadmissible, even if the nullity action is based only on a national prior right that cannot be considered during the European opposition proceedings.
Therefore, the German Federal Court of Justice also ruled in “toll calculation” that the national infringement court must consider the option to stay the infringement proceedings in view of an ongoing opposition procedure, even if it is likely that the opposition will not be successful, but if a subsequent nullity complaint has sufficient likelihood of success based on a document that can only be considered in the latter procedure.
In essence, the decision “toll calculation” of the German Federal Court of Justice follows the Court’s earlier decision “radiation control”, wherein a German nullity action is inadmissible as long as a parallel (German or European) opposition procedure is pending. “Toll calculation” explicitly establishes this principle of precedence of the opposition over the nullity procedure also for cases where the nullity action is based on a national prior right that can only be used in the nullity procedure, but cannot be considered in the opposition.
In summary, this means that the German Federal Court of Justice applied a more formal point of view on the admissibility of a nullity complaint, but on the other hand also provided a solution to the potential problems that may arise from this decision.
Headnotes of the decision
Die bei laufendem Einspruchsverfahren erhobene Nichtigkeitsklage ist auch dann unzulässig, wenn sie nur auf ein älteres nationales Recht im Sinne des Art. 139 Abs. 2 EPÜ gestützt wird (Fortführung von BGH, Urteil vom 12. Juli 2005 – X ZR 29/05, BGHZ 163, 369 – Strahlungssteuerung).
The nullity action lodged during pending opposition proceedings is inadmissible also if it is based only on a national prior right in the sense of Art. 139 (2) EPC (continuation of BGH, decision of July 12, 2005 – Case X ZR 29/05 – Strahlungssteuerung).
The infringement judge may and must consider the possibility of staying the procedure in view of pending opposition proceedings, also if he reckons that the opposition will have no success, but that a subsequently lodged nullity action has sufficient likelihood of success due to a document which can only be considered in this procedure.
Dieser Artikel erschien erstmals im BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report IV/2011. Der Artikel diskutiert den deutschen Ansatz zur Koordination der zwei Mittel zur Invalidierung eines Patents: das (deutsche oder europäische) Einspruchsverfahren einerseits und das nationale Nichtigkeitsverfahren andererseits.
BGH Webseitenanzeige: Der BGH erhöht die Hürde für Softwarepatente in Deutschland Dieser Artikel erschien erstmals im BARDEHLE PAGENBERG IP Report III/2011 und diskutiert die aktuelle Entwicklung der deutschen Rechtsprechung bezüglich der...
"BGH Mautberechnung: German Federal Court of Justice on the admissibility of a nullity action lodged during parallel opposition proceedings" wurde am 9. Oktober 2011 veröffentlicht und 291 mal gelesen.	Über Bastian Best	Bastian Best ist einer der wenigen Patentanwälte mit deutscher und europäischer Zulassung und einem Universitätsabschluss in Informatik. Durch diese fachliche Kombination ist Bastian Best Spezialist für alle Fragen zur Patentierbarkeit von Software-Erfindungen (“Softwarepatente“).