Decision keyword:
Rivaroxaban I
Law applied:
EPÜ Art. 64 (1)
PatG § 139 (1)
PatG § 9
PatG § 83
ZPO § 935, § 940
Summary:
- As a rule, it can be assumed that each feature of a patent claim has an independent meaning when taken on its own. However, this does not preclude the possibility that, in individual cases, interpretation of the patent claim on the basis of the description may reveal that a particular feature is already implicitly included in another feature and that there is therefore "overdetermination."
- Patent infringement by equivalent means is generally to be denied if the description discloses several possibilities for achieving a particular technical effect, but only one of these possibilities has been included in the patent claim (BGH, GRUR 2016, 921 marginal no. 52 – Pemetrexed, with reference to BGH, GRUR 2011, 701 – Okklusionsvorrichtung). However, this only applies if the specific means, including the properties that result in the (same) patented effects of the means, have been disclosed directly and unambiguously in the patent specification.
- In the case of an application for a preliminary injunction for alleged patent infringement, a balancing of interests must be carried out within the scope of the grounds for the injunction. In the event of an attack on the validity of the patent (which has already occurred or is to be expected in the near future), the infringement court must examine whether the (future) validity of the patent in suit appears to be sufficiently secure, i.e., it must make a prognosis as to whether the patent is likely to prove valid in the validity proceedings.
- If, taking into account the submissions of both parties, the infringement court is not convinced of the future legal validity, the remaining doubts are regularly weighed against the applicant in the balancing of interests, unless, due to special circumstances, the creditor's interests in immediately stopping the conduct in dispute are, in exceptional cases, nevertheless to be rated higher than the respondent's interests in undisturbed continuation of the conduct that may be objectively unlawful. In this context, reference can be made to the case groups established in the case law of the higher regional courts, although this is not an exhaustive list of exceptions. Rather, a comprehensive weighing of the interests of both parties based on the circumstances of the individual case is always required.
- If the Federal Patent Court has issued a qualified notice pursuant to Section 83 (1) sentence 1 PatG that is likely to confirm the legal status, it can generally be assumed that such a notice, as a qualified statement of fact by the Federal Patent Court, which is appointed by law to review the decisions of the granting authorities and which expresses itself sufficiently clearly in favor of the protectability of the patent, from the perspective of the infringement court, generally leads to the conclusion that the legal status is secured to such an extent that a cease-and-desist order can be issued if a (committed or imminent) patent infringement is found. In this case, something else only applies if the reference is clearly inaccurate (i.e., readily recognizable by a panel of non-technical judges) and it can also be assumed with certainty that the senate of the patent court issuing the reference will depart from this reference in the decision it is to make. The mere fact that the infringement court, after weighing the arguments presented by the parties, considers a different assessment to be possible ( ) is therefore not sufficient to override the assessment in the qualified notice of the Federal Patent Court.
- In the Senate's view, there are compelling arguments in favor of the view that even prior art that has become known or has been introduced subsequently only justifies deviating from the assessment of the Federal Patent Court in a qualified reference if, according to the new submissions, the preliminary assessment in the reference clearly cannot (or can no longer) stand.
Munich Higher Regional Court, Judgment of February 13, 2025 – 6 U 2277/24 e
Picture credits: Brett_AdobeStock.com