For data on the litigation in Germany, the UK (England and Wales), France and the Netherlands and their comparison see K Cremers et al., ‘Patent litigation in Europe (tm) [2017] Eur. J. Law Econ. 1, 16 "33.
See already Federal Court of Justice, I ZR 93/57, [1959] GRUR 320,
"324 "Moped-Kupplung.
Cremers et al. (n 1) 13 (‘proceedings before the LG [=regional court] tend to be relatively speedy with the first) oral hearing scheduled after 6 "12 months, and judgment 1 "3 months after the (second) oral hearing (tm));
H Deichfuß, ‘Die Pr 1/4fung des Rechtsbestands des Patents im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz. Anmerkungen zum Vorlagebeschluss des LG M 1/4nchen I “Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren” (tm) [2022] GRUR 33, 35 (1 year or less);
M Stief and C Meyer, ‘Originator vs. Generika "Pharmapatente im Spannungsfeld des einstweiligen Verf 1/4gungsverfahrens (tm) [2022] PharmR
, 426 (12 "15 months).
In essence, the system allows the filing of oppositions at the respective patent office (German Patent and Trademark Office or European Patent Office) within 9 months after the publication of the grant. Thereafter, one can file an action for validity at the Federal Patent Court.
K Cremers et al., ‘Invalid but infringed An analysis of the bifurcated patent litigation system (tm) [2016] J. Econ. Behav. Organ. 240 "241 (the German bifurcation generates additional costs for alleged infringers and benefits for patent holders);
Deichfuß (n 3) 35 (stating that the German patent system is rather patentee-friendly and referring to the bifurcation);
RM Hilty and M Lamping, ‘Trennungsprinzip "Quo vadis, Germania (tm) in A Bender et al. (eds) 50 Jahre Bundespatentgericht: Festschrift zum
jaḧ rigen Bestehen des Bundespatentgerichts am 1. Juli 2011 (Carl Heymanns 2011) 255, 272 (bifurcation generates overprotection of patentee).
The paper uses the terms interim, interlocutory, preliminary and provisional as synonyms.
T K 1/4hnen, Handbuch der Patentverletzung (14th edn, Carl Heymanns
2) G, para 44;
R Hauck, ‘Hal̈ t doppelt wirklich besser Der Rechtsbestand eines Verf 1/4gungspatents und die Vorgaben des europaï schen Rechts (tm) [2021] GRUR-Prax 127, 127. See also the reasoning of the D 1/4sseldorf Higher Regional Court: Harnkathederset (n 11) para 15;
D 1/4sseldorf Higher Regional Court, I-2 U 61/18, [2020] GRUR 272 para
"Hydroxysubstituierte Azetidinone.
C Ann, ‘Patentqualitaẗ "was ist das, und warum ist Patentqualitaẗ auch f 1/4r Anmelder wichtig (tm) [2018] GRUR International 1114;
H Ullrich, ‘Patentqualitaẗ : Ein rechtliches Systemdilemma (tm), MPI Discussion Paper No. 15, 2020;
MR McGuire and D Skiebe, ‘Digitalisierung und Patentqualitaẗ : Vom Stor̈ faktor zum Tool (tm) [2022] ZdiW 119. See also Elektrische Anschlussklemme (n 11) para 68 where the court states that various patents have been invalidated after the grant of interlocutory relief.
J Henkel and H Zischka, ‘How many patents are truly valid Extent, causes, and remedies for latent patent invalidity (tm) [2019] Eur J Law Econ
P Hess, T M 1/4ller-Stoy and M Wintermeier, ‘Sind Patente nur “Papiertiger” (tm) [2014] Mitt. 439;
T M 1/4ller-Stoy, A Giedke and J Große-Ophoff, ‘Aktuelle Vernichtungsquoten im deutschen Patentnichtigkeitsverfahren (tm) [2022] GRUR 142, 152. See also A H 1/4ttermann, ‘Patente "Papiertiger oder wirkliche Tiger (tm) [2016] Mitt. 101 (critical regarding the methods of earlier studies).
Henkel/Zischka (n 9) 195.
Cf D 1/4sseldorf Higher Regional Court, 2 U 126/09, [2010] GRUR-RS
See, for example, the assessment by T Wuttke, ‘OLG M 1/4nchen: Strengste Anforderungen an den Rechtsbestand bei einstweiligen Verf 1/4gungen in Patent- und Gebrauchsmustersachen (tm) [2020] GRUR-Prax 106. For the respective case law, see, for example, Harnkathederset (n 11) and Elektrische Anschlussklemme (n 11).
C Ann, Patentrecht. Lehrbuch zum deutschen und europaï schen Patentrecht und Gebrauchsmusterrecht (8th edn, CH Beck 2022) § 36, para 102.
No other jurisdiction is known to the author that requires a prior ‘battle test (tm) before issuing an interlocutory injunction.
To the contrary, some jurisdictions grant provisional injunctive relief in a very early phase of the lifespan of a patent, some even before.
In a recent decision of 3 June 2022, the President of the Paris High Court accepted the admissibility of a request for a preliminary injunction based on a mere patent application after the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office had ordered the Examining Division to grant the patent on the basis of one of the claims submitted by the applicant.
However, in a related litigation in Denmark, the Danish Maritime and Commercial High Court dismissed the application for preliminary injunctive relief.
For the general practice in France, see T Gisclard and E Py, ‘France (tm) in JL Contreras and M Husovec (eds) Injunctions in Patent Law (CUP Cambridge 2022) 124, 134.
For the general practice in the Netherlands, see WA Hoyng and LE Dijkman, ‘Netherlands (tm) in JL Contreras and M Husovec (eds) Injunctions in Patent Law (CUP Cambridge 2022) 218, 221 "222.
For the general practice in Finland, see M Norrgård, ‘Finland (tm) in JL Contreras and M Husovec (eds) Injunctions in Patent Law (CUP Cambridge 2022) 97, 112 "116.
The referring decision: Regional Court, Munich I, 21 O 16782/20, [2021] GRUR 466 "Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren.
Directive 2004/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the enforcement of IP rights. In the following ‘IPRED (tm) or ‘the Directive (tm).
See the wording of the original question referred in Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (n 15) para 22.
The preliminary ruling by the CJEU: Judgment in Phoenix Contact GmbH & Co. KG v HARTING Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Harting Electric GmbH & Co. KG, Case C-44/21, ECLI:EU:C:2022:309.
H Deichfuß, ‘Nochmals: Die Pr 1/4fung des Rechtsbestands des Patents im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz.
Besprechung zu EuGH ‘Phoenix Contact/Harting”, [2022] GRUR 800, 802.
Cf the discussion of various judges at ‘Carl Heymanns Patenttage 2022 (tm) on 8 July 2022 in Osnabr 1/4ck and the talk by T K 1/4hnen at ‘D 1/4sseldorfer Richergesprac̈ he (tm) on 10 August
M Zigann, ‘Die Patentstreitsache (tm) in M Haedicke and H Timmann (eds) Handbuch des Patentrechts (2nd edn, CH Beck Munich 2020) § 15, para 340;
Stief/Meyer (n 3) 427.
Harnkathederset (n 11) para 20.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
Ibid.
See, however, High Regional Court, Karlsruhe, 6 U 52/15, [2015] GRUR-RR 509 para 41 "Ausr 1/4stungssatz.
Munich Higher Regional Court, 6 U 1260/12, [2012] BeckRS 16104 "Gesicherter Rechtsbestand des Verf 1/4gungspatents (explicitly dissenting Harnkathederset).
Elektrische Anschlussklemme (n 11).
Ibid, para 67 "69.
Ibid, para 68.
Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (n 15) para 10 "12.
Only 4 days before the Regional Court (tm)s decision to refer the case to the CJEU, one of the defendants had filed an opposition with the European Patent Office.
Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (n 15) para 20 "21. See also NA Gajeck, ‘Justizgeẅahrung und rechtliches Geḧor im patentrechtlichen Eilverfahren (Teil 2) (tm), [2021] GRUR-Prax 97, 98 (arguing before the referral that the practice of the higher regional courts is not in line with the IPRED).
Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (n 15) para 22.
T K 1/4hnen, ‘Anmerkung zu Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (tm) [2021] GRUR 468.
Deichfuß (n 3) 36 "39.
K 1/4hnen (n 35) 469.
K 1/4hnen (n 35) 469;
Deichfuß (n 3) 37 "38. See also Hauck (n 7) 128 (stating that the actual practice is more differentiated than described in the referral).
K 1/4hnen (n 35) 469;
Deichfuß (n 3) 37 "38.
T Pichlmaier, ‘Die Bedeutung der Patenterteilung f 1/4r die Bestandsprognose im einstweiligen Rechtsschutz (tm) [2021] GRUR 557, 557.
K 1/4hnen (n 35) 469 "470;
Deichfuß (n 3) 38 "39.
K 1/4hnen (n 35) 469 "470.
Deichfuß (n 3) 39.
Cf K 1/4hnen (n 35) 469 "470 who argues that the Munich Higher Regional Court might not apply an exception in such cases or Deichfuß (n 3) 38 "39 stating that the Regional Court, Munich I should have tried to convince the Munich Higher Regional Court by advancing a respective reasoning.
See, however, P v Cettritz, ‘Was sind die Folgen der EuGH-Entscheidung vom 28. 04. 2022 (Az.: C-44/21) im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren in Patentsachen (tm) [2022] PharmR 501, 503 (making the point that the Regional Court, Munich I might have been able to issue the injunction based on this consideration).
Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (n 15) para 9.
Ibid, para 17.
Phoenix Contact (n 18) para 15 "18.
Ibid, para 18.
Ibid, para 54.
Ibid, para 51.
Ibid, para 53.
Ibid, para 31.
Ibid, para 32.
Ibid, para 32.
Ibid, para 32.
Ibid, para 34.
Ibid, para 35.
Ibid, para 37.
Ibid, para 39.
Ibid, para 40.
Ibid, para 41.
Ibid, para 42.
Ibid, para 44.
Ibid, para 45 "48.
See www.justiz.bayern.de/gerichte-und-behoerden/landgericht/muenchen-1/presse/2022/12.php (accessed 31 July 2022) and the paper by the Presiding Judge of the referring court: T Pichlmaier, ‘Patentbestand und Patentverletzung "einfach unzertrennlich (tm) [2022] Mitt. 241, 247.
M Schmitz and T Zilliox, ‘Erleichterter einstweiliger Rechtschutz in Patentsachen (tm) [2022] GRUR-Prax 314;
R Hauck and K Werner, ‘Die Durchsetzung von Patenten nach der “Phoenix Contact/HARTING”-Entscheidung des EuGH (tm) [2022] GRUR-Prax 335, 336 "337;
Stief/Meyer(n 3) 432.
See sources in n 19.
v Cettritz (n 45) 503;
Stief/Meyer (n 3) 432.
Deichfuß (n 19) 802.
Deichfuß (n 3) 36.
Ibid, 35.
Ibid, 36.
The ‘injunction gap (tm) is considered a substantial problem in the German framework (from a perspective of fundamental rights, LE Dijkman, ‘Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementers (tm) Fair Trial Rights Under the ECHR (tm) [2021] GRUR International 215 and also LE Dijkman, ‘Does the Injunction Gap Violate Implementer (tm)s Fair Trial Rights Under the Charter (tm) [2022] GRUR 857).
A reform of the statutory law in 2021 tried to address this issue but more amendments might follow (see A Ohly and M Stierle, ‘Unverḧaltnism̈aßigkeit, Injunction Gap und Geheimnisschutz im Prozess.
Das Zweite Patentrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz im ̈Uberblick (tm) [2021] GRUR 1229, 1238 "1239).
For some data and an economic assessment about the injunction gap, see F G̈aßler, Enforcing and Trading Patents.
Evidence for Europe (Springer Berlin 2016) 79 "89.
Cf Deichfuß (n 3) 36 "37.
See Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (n 15) para 6 "7 and Phoenix Contact (n 18) para 9 "10. The courts specifically refer to § 935 and 940 GCCP.
Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (n 15) para 9.
See M Grosch, ‘Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz in Patentsachen beim UPC (vor dem Hintergrund der EuGH Entscheidung Phoenix Contact) (tm), presentation at ‘14. Mannheimer IP-Forum (tm), 24 June 2022. See also vCettritz (n 45) 503.
Phoenix Contact (n 18) para 33 "34. See also para 40.
Ibid, para 41.
For the interpretation of a preliminary ruling in the light of its reasoning, see Judgment of 16 March 1978, Case C-135/77, Robert Bosch GmbH v Hauptzollamt Hildesheim, ECLI:EU:C:1978:75.
v Cettritz (n 45) 503;
N Keßler and C Palzer, ‘Die (vermeintliche) deutsche Gerichtspraxis der patentrechtlichen Unterlassungsverf 1/4gung auf dem Pr 1/4fstand des EuGH "Luxemburg locuta, causa finita (tm) [2022] EuZW 562, 566.
v Cettritz (n 45) 503.
Ibid, 502 "503.
Deichfuß (n 19) 802.
Cf P Rastemborski, ‘EuGH-Vorlage zu einstweiligem Rechtsschutz in Patentsachen (tm) [2021] GRUR-Prax 109 with references to respective decisions.
See for example Harnkathederset (n 11) para 22 "24.
Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (n 15) para 16. See also Gajeck (n 35) 98 and Hauck (n 7) 129 (stating that such an approach is not in line with the IPRED).
Pichlmaier (n 40) 560;
Pichlmaier (n 66) 246 "247.
Rechtsbestand im Verf 1/4gungsverfahren (n 15) para 16 "19.
Ibid, para 18. See also the critique by Deichfuß (n 19) 802 and Keßler/Palzer (n 82) 566.
See, for example, Hydroxysubstituierte Azetidinone (n 7) 7, where the D 1/4sseldorf Higher Regional Court described its own practice that, as a principle (‘prinzipiell (tm)), only battle-tested patents are eligible, but a court can derogate from this condition (‘Erfordernis (tm)) in exceptional cases.
Article 19(3)(b) EU, Article 267(1)(b) TFEU.
Elektrische Anschlussklemme (n 11) para 68.
Arguing in this direction, also Hauck (n 7) 129.
Cf Hauck (n 7) 129 (stating that such an approach is not in line with the IPRED).
See also Stief/Meyer (n 3) 433. According to § 83 of the German Patent Act, the Federal Patent Court is supposed to inform the parties and the infringement court as early as possible about the main issues during the proceedings, at the latest within 6 months after service of process.
This aspect refers to one of the exceptions provided for in Harnkathederset(n 11) para 20.
IP5 is a forum of the five largest intellectual property offices in the world.
They are the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), the European Patent Office (EPO), the Japan Patent Office (JPO), the Korean Intellectual Property Office (KIPO), and the National Intellectual Property Administration (CNIPA) in China.
This collaborative scheme implemented in the framework of a pilot between June 2018 and July 2020 consisted in the five offices performing a search of the international application and working jointly on the production of the international search report and written opinion.
The IP5 offices are currently discussing implementing this scheme in a more permanent manner in the legal framework of the PCT.
See also www.fiveipoffices.org/activities/ws/pct/csepilot.
See M Stierle, ‘Anmerkung zu Phoenix Contact v Harting (tm) [2022] Mit. 277, 278 "279.
Italics added by the author.
Phoenix Contact (n 18) para 44 "48.
For a legal "economic framework where courts grant provisional injunctions quasi-automatically and the interests of the defendant are warranted by a financial compensation of compliance damages in case the injunction is not upheld, see RRW Brooks and WF Schwartz, ‘Legal Uncertainty, Economic Efficiency, and the Preliminary Injunction Doctrine (tm) [2005] 58 Stan. L. Rev. 381.
See also C Heinze, Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz im europ̈aischen Immaterialg 1/4terrecht (Mohr Siebeck 2007) 346 "355 (discussing whether the IPRED requires the assessment of interests before granting interlocutory relief).
Deichfuß (n 19) 801 "802 understands the judgment in this sense, too.
Phoenix Contact (n 18) para 31.
COM(2017) 708, part III.1. and COM(2017) 712, part 3.2.
See also Keßler/Palzer (n 82) 566.
For the UPC, Article 62(2) UPCA and Rule 211(2), (3) suggest such an approach as well.
Phoenix Contact (n 18) para 42 cites Article 3(2) IPRED but refers only to the second half sentence (avoiding barriers to legitimate trade and providing safeguards against abuse) and not the first half sentence (inter alia, principle of proportionality) of this paragraph.
See also Hauck/Werner (n 67) 336 (criticizing the CJEU for not working with the principle of proportionality enshrined in Article 3(2) IPRED).
Judgment in Bayer Pharma AG v Richter Gedeon Vegy (c)szeti Gyár Nyrt. and Exeltis Magyarország Gýogyszerkereskedelmi Kft., C-688/17, ECLI:EU:C:2019:722.
Deichfuß (n 19) 802.
See also Hauck (n 7) 129 and Stierle (n 100) 278 "279.
For literature on the practice of the Member States, see (n 14).
Phoenix Contact (n 18) para 41.
Judgment in Generics (UK) Ltd and Others v Competition and Markets Authority, C-307/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:52 para 48.
Bayer Pharma (n 107). The decision has been commentated controversially: A Sztoldman, ‘Compensation for a Wrongful Enforcement of a Preliminary Injunction under the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC) (tm) [2020] 42 EIPR 721;
HJ Ahrens, ‘Vom Ende der Risikohaftung des § 945 ZPO bei Verletzung von Rechten des Geistigen Eigentums (tm) [2020] WRP 387;
W Tilmann, ‘Erforderliche ̈Anderung der patentrechtlichen Rechtsprechung zu § 945 ZPO im Bereich von Art. 9 VII der RL 2004/48/EG (tm) [2021] GRUR 997.
A Hungarian Court referred the question to the CJEU.
For the reactions by the Hungarian legislator to the preliminary ruling, see A Cserny and D Geyer-Hirt, ‘Progress Over Time: Significant Changes in the Hungarian Patent Act and the Consequences Thereof (tm) [2022] GRUR International 353, 354 "356.
See, for example, the presumption of validity for German designs according to § 39 German Design Protection Act.
Dissenting, Pichlmaier (n 40) 558 "559.
This should be the case, although the Presiding Judge Pichlmaier has transferred on his own request from the referring court, the 21st Civil Chamber of the Regional Court, Munich I, to the 37th Civil Chamber of the Munich court, where he will deal mostly with competition law.
Cf the discussion of the judges at ‘Carl Heymanns Patenttage 2022 (tm) on 8 July 2022 in Osnabr 1/4ck.
See (n 74).
Pichlmaier (n 66) 248.
EK Pakuscher, ‘Zur Zusẗandigkeit des Bundesgerichtshofs und des Bundespatentgerichts in Patentnichtigkeitsverfahren (tm) [1995] GRUR 705, 707;
A Sedemund-Treiber, ‘Strukturen einer europ̈aischen Patentgerichtsbarkeit (tm) [1999] Mitt. 121, 123 (bifurcation as historical failure).
See already A Sedemund-Treiber, ‘Braucht ein europ̈aisches Patentgericht den technischen Richter (tm) [2001] GRUR 1004, 1008 "1009.
