In a recent decision on patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, the German Federal Court of Justice confirmed its case law that each limitation of the claim must be met in the accused device, either literally or equivalently. Specifically, the Court held that it was irrelevant whether the accused device as a whole produces an effect that is, in its totality, equivalent to an embodiment of the claim. Rather, it was decisive which effect each individual limitation of the claim contributes to the use of the invention and whether these exact effects are achieved literally or equivalently in the accused device.
Continue Reading German Federal Court of Justice Confirms Its Case Law on Patent Infringement by Equivalents

On 14 June 2016, the German Federal Court of Justice (X ZR 29/15 “Pemetrexed”) confirmed prior decisions in which it held that patent infringement under the doctrine of equivalents can, in principle, not be assumed, if the patent discloses various ways that a certain technical result can be achieved, but only one of those possibilities has found its way into the claims.
Continue Reading German Federal Court of Justice Rules on Patent Infringement Under the Doctrine of Equivalents

In Germany, questions of patent infringement and validity are (somewhat controversially) tried separately in different courts. While the Federal Patent Court has exclusive jurisdiction over actions for nullity (section 81(4) of the Patent Act) with a possible appeal to the Federal Court of Justice, infringement proceedings are dealt with by the civil divisions of
Continue Reading Patent Claims Must Be Reviewed Independently by Infringement and Nullity Courts According to the German Federal Court of Justice