Patent Law Page

1. German Federal Supreme Court: On the interpretation of the contents of application documents (Decision of July 8, 2008 – Case XZB 13/06 – Momentanpol II/Instantaneous Center of Rotation)
Reported by Joachim Mader

2. German Federal Supreme Court confirms narrow interpretation of exclusion of methods from protection by utility models (Decision of July 29, 2008 – Case X ZB 23/07 – Telekommunikationsanordnung/Telecommunication arrangement)
Reported by Johannes Lang

3. European Patent Office proposes amendments of the Implementing Regulations to the EPC in order to restrict the “misuse of divisional applications”. In addition new rules are proposed in connection with the initiative “Raising the Bar”
Reported by Dr. Rudolf Teschemacher

4. European Patent Office: President of EPO refers four questions with respect to computer implemented inventions to Enlarged Board of Appeal (Referral of October 22, 2008 – Case G 3/08)
Reported by Johannes Lang, Dr Hans Wegner, Dr Rudolf Teschemacher

5. Düsseldorf Appeal Court rules that damages for patent infringement according to the “profits made by the infringer” are only those profits which are directly related to the infringement (Decision of June 2, 2005 – Case 2 U 39/03 – Verletzergewinn/Profits made by the infringer)
Reported by Clemens Rübel and Christian Steudtner

6. Düsseldorf Appeal Court dismisses preliminary injunction against sales and distribution of drugs containing “Olanzapine” (Decision of August 25, 2008 – Case I-2 W 43/08 – Olanzapine IV)
Reported by Christian Steudtner and Clemens Rübel

7. Düsseldorf District Court dismisses preliminary injunction against sales and distribution of drugs containing “Olanzapine” (Decision of August 12, 2008 – Case 4 b O 100/08 – Olanzapine III)
Reported by Christian Steudtner and Clemens Rübel

8. A draft bill of the “Act to simplify and modernize the patent law” of May 30, 2008 is on the legislative agenda
Reported by Dr Dieter Stauder

Trademark Law

9. European Court of Justice: What constitutes the “link” between marks in the case of conflict between marks with a reputation (Judgment of November 27, 2008 – Case C-252/07 – Intel Corporation Inc. v. CPM United Kingdom Ltd., INTEL v. INTELMARK)
Reported by Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl

10. European Court of Justice: Use of a mark for services of a charitable institution and not-for-profit may constitute genuine use (Judgment of December 9, 2008 – Case C-447/07 – Verein Radetzky-Orden v. Bundesvereinigung Kameradschaft “Feldmarschall Radetzky”)
Reported by Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl

11. European Court of Justice: Likelihood of confusion when two Community trade marks are involved (Judgment of December 11, 2008 – Case C-57/08 P – Gateway, Inc. v. OHIM – Fujitsu Siemens Computer GmbH)
Reported by Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl

12. German Federal Supreme Court on the requirements of protection against misappropriation (Decision of June 26, 2008 – Case I ZR 170/05 – ICON)
Reported by Dr. Henning Hartwig

Design Law

13. German Federal Supreme Court rendered first decision on substantive Community design law (Decision of October 9, 2008 – Case I ZR 126/06 – Gebäckpresse/Press for Bakery Products)
Reported by Thomas Huber

Plant Variety Law

14. European Court of Justice (Court of First Instance): First decision on application proceedings of a Community plant variety right (Decision of November 19, 2008 – Case T–187/06 – Schräder v Community Plant Variety Office)
Reported by Thomas Huber

Publié le
December 2008
Joachim Mader
German and European Patent Attorney, Partner
Johannes Lang
German and European Patent Attorney, Co-Managing Partner
Rudolf Teschemacher
Senior Consultant
Hans Wegner
German and European Patent Attorney, Of Counsel
Alexander von Mühlendahl
Attorney-at-Law (Rechtsanwalt)
Henning Hartwig
Attorney-at-Law (Rechtsanwalt), Partner*
Clemens Rübel
Christian Steudtner
Thomas Huber