Decision Keyword:
electro-hydraulic hand tool
Law applied:
EPC Art. 64 (1), (3), Art. 69
PatG § 10 para. 1, § 139 para. 1, para. 2, § 140b, § 141 p. 1
German Civil Code (BGB) § 214 para. 1, § 67
Summary (Machine translation):
- According to the doctrine of the patent in suit, if there must be no causality between an event (here: opening of the pressure relief valve) and a further event occurring at a later time (here: interruption of the motor current), patent infringement cannot be refuted by arguing that the attacked embodiment, in deviation from the delivery state, can also be programmed in such a way that the motor current is interrupted without the overpressure valve being opened beforehand or, conversely, is not interrupted although the overpressure valve has previously opened. (para. 120) (para. 1
- The subject matter of an injunction based on direct patent infringement and that based on contributory patent infringement are different, also in terms of the doctrine of the subject matter of the dispute. A warning letter that exclusively asserts a claim for injunctive relief based on direct patent infringement is therefore to be regarded as unjustified (para. 135)
Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court, judgment of May 24, 2024 – 2 U 20/19 –
Download Judgment (machine translation)
Header: Anselm_AdobeStock.com