Contributor Page
Bardehle Pagenberg
Email  |  Articles
Contact Details
Tel: +49 89 928 050
Fax: +49 89 928 05444
Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte
Prinzregentenplatz 7
By Nadine Heiartz
The same was said to apply with regard to the determination of the amount of the Plaintiff's non-material share in the patents.
By Philipe Kutschke
The GC was of the opinion that the EUIPO erred in law by not identifying the relevant prior art on its own among the facts presented.
By Joachim Mader
A feature which was not disclosed as belonging to the invention in the originally filed documents and the deletion of which would lead to an extension of the scope of protection may remain in the patent claim if the introduction of this feature leads to a limitation in view of the content of the application.
On October 22, 2008 the President of the European Patent Office, in accordance with Article 112 (1) (b) EPC, referred four questions relating to the patentability of computer implemented inventions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO.
By Dr. Alexander von Mühlendahl
The judgment resulted from a reference made by the Court of Appeal for England and Wales in an action initiated by Intel Corp. against CPM, seeking cancellation of CPM’s INTELMARK mark registered for services in cl. 35 on the basis of Intel’s earlier INTEL marks protected for dissimilar goods.
By Thomas Huber
On October 9, 2008, Germany’s Federal Supreme Court decided its first case on substantive Community design law.
By Henning Hartwig
On April 30, 2008 Germany’s Federal Supreme Court issued a further ruling, contributing to a set of 3-D trademark decisions related to the requirements of successful enforcement and, in particular, the mark-in-suit’s scope of protection (see also IP-Report 2007/IV No. 5).
By Rudolf Teschemacher
Judicial proceedings in the EPO consist of one single instance, the Boards of Appeal. The EPC 2000 has not changed this in general.
By Dieter Stauder
The main aim of the draft is a reform of patent invalidity litigation. Particularly the long duration of the appeal procedure is endangering the effectiveness oft the German patent system.
By Tilman Müller-Stoy
Generally, a patent claim may not be interpreted “below” its literal meaning. However, exceptionally, a restrictive interpretation of a patent claim below its literal meaning is justified if the technical result to be achieved by the invention is only achieved by a technical teaching according to such restrictive interpretation.
By Henning Hartwig
In general, the German law against misappropriation (on the grounds of unfair competition law), is an effective tool against copying, especially in support of “classic” design and copyright law.
By Philipe Kutschke
The plaintiff – the Deutsche Post AG – is the owner of the German word mark “POST”, registered inter alia for transportation and delivery of letters and parcels.
By Thomas Huber
For the first time, the Court of First Instance (CFI) has ruled on the requirements for granting a Community plant variety right.
How can an owner's right be effectively and rapidly protected against infringement of its IP rights? Preliminary court proceedings in Germany are a sharp tool in disputes about infringement of trade marks, designs, patents, copyrights or acts of unfair competition.
By Fabrizio Miazzetto
Fabrizio Miazzetto examines the issues litigants should consider when bringing proceedings before the new CTM and CD court in Alicante and discusses the opportunities for rights owners to forum shop in Europe.