Stethoskop in Herzform mit Gehirnsymbol, Injektionsspritze und oranger MS-Schleife auf lilafarbenem Hintergrund, sinnbildlich für neurologische Erkrankungen und MS-Therapie.

“No third-party damages in the case of business lease only after enforcement of a cease-and-desist order – Glatiramer Acetate” (BGH)

Federal Supreme Court (BGH), Judgment of March 13, 2025 - IX ZR 201/23

Decision Keyword:

Glatiramer Acetate

Law applied:

Code of civil procedure (ZPO) § 945

Summary:

  1. If the enforcement of an injunction has been made dependent on the provision of security, the inadequacy of a bank guarantee provided as security in individual points does not in principle prevent the claim for compensation for the damage resulting from compliance with the injunction.
  2. If the damage resulting from compliance with an injunction based on a patent infringement is calculated in terms of lost profit, the injured party is not entitled to claim the excess profit made by the enforcer under the law of enrichment.
  3. If the judgment debtor leases its business operations to an affiliated company after enforcement of the injunction, it cannot demand compensation for the profit lost by this company as a result of its (voluntary) absence from the market by way of liquidation of third-party damages (following Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of November 25, 1993 - IX ZR 32/93, NJW 1994, 1413, 1416; delimitation of Federal Supreme Court (BGH), judgment of April 21, 2023 - V ZR 86/22, NJW-RR 2023, 1125 para. 24).extent than can be expected according to the binding decision of the European Patent Office.

BGH, Judgment of March 13, 2025  – IX ZR 201/23 –

Download Judgment (machine translation)

>>Further Judgments

Header: OpenClipart-Verctors_pixabay.com - Pixel-Shot_AdobeStock.com

Back