Position Paper on the Envisaged Reform of the German Patent Act

Luc Desaunettes-Barbero, Reto M. Hilty, Daria Kim, M. Lamping, Peter R. Slowinski, Hanns Ullrich
{"title":"Position Paper on the Envisaged Reform of the German Patent Act","authors":"Luc Desaunettes-Barbero, Reto M. Hilty, Daria Kim, M. Lamping, Peter R. Slowinski, Hanns Ullrich","doi":"10.2139/ssrn.3592465","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This position paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition provides comments on the amendments proposed by the German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in its discussion draft of January 2020 on the modernization and simplification of the German Patent Act. While the Institute generally welcomes the initiative, the paper offers some suggestions aimed at increasing precision in the areas of first, the concept and the implementation of the proportionality test for granting injunctive relief, and, second, the need for enhanced protection of trade secrets in patent disputes.\r\n\r\nWith regard to the proportionality assessment, the Institute suggests that, rather than reducing it to an application of the principle of good faith, the concept of proportionality should be interpreted and applied in light of the ratio legis of patent protection with a view to preventing dysfunctional effects potentially resulting from the exercise of the exclusive right and the associated claim to an injunction. Scenarios involving complex products, non-practicing entities and standard-essential patents are used to illustrate the approach. As regards the weighing and balancing of interests when assessing proportionality, the position paper argues that it is neither desirable nor appropriate to prioritize the interests of the patentee over those of the infringer as a matter of principle. In addition, it is not only the interests of parties to the dispute, but also those of third parties, in particular the public interest, that should be taken into account.\r\n\r\nWith regard to the protection of trade secrets in patent disputes, the position paper refers to certain procedural insufficiencies of the Trade Secrets Act to adequately protect the defendant’s secrecy interests. It also points out a potential loophole in relation to the ‘Dusseldorf proceedings’ that may facilitate ‘fishing expeditions’.","PeriodicalId":125544,"journal":{"name":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","volume":"34 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ERN: Intellectual Property (Topic)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3592465","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This position paper of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition provides comments on the amendments proposed by the German Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in its discussion draft of January 2020 on the modernization and simplification of the German Patent Act. While the Institute generally welcomes the initiative, the paper offers some suggestions aimed at increasing precision in the areas of first, the concept and the implementation of the proportionality test for granting injunctive relief, and, second, the need for enhanced protection of trade secrets in patent disputes. With regard to the proportionality assessment, the Institute suggests that, rather than reducing it to an application of the principle of good faith, the concept of proportionality should be interpreted and applied in light of the ratio legis of patent protection with a view to preventing dysfunctional effects potentially resulting from the exercise of the exclusive right and the associated claim to an injunction. Scenarios involving complex products, non-practicing entities and standard-essential patents are used to illustrate the approach. As regards the weighing and balancing of interests when assessing proportionality, the position paper argues that it is neither desirable nor appropriate to prioritize the interests of the patentee over those of the infringer as a matter of principle. In addition, it is not only the interests of parties to the dispute, but also those of third parties, in particular the public interest, that should be taken into account. With regard to the protection of trade secrets in patent disputes, the position paper refers to certain procedural insufficiencies of the Trade Secrets Act to adequately protect the defendant’s secrecy interests. It also points out a potential loophole in relation to the ‘Dusseldorf proceedings’ that may facilitate ‘fishing expeditions’.
关于设想的德国专利法改革的立场文件
马克斯·普朗克创新与竞争研究所的这份立场文件对德国司法和消费者保护部在其2020年1月关于德国专利法现代化和简化的讨论草案中提出的修正案提出了评论。虽然该研究所普遍欢迎这一倡议,但该文件提出了一些建议,旨在提高以下领域的准确性:第一,授予禁令救济的比例性检验的概念和实施;第二,在专利纠纷中加强对商业秘密保护的必要性。关于相称性的评估,协会建议,相称性的概念不应简化为一种诚实信用原则的适用,而应根据专利保护的比例法律加以解释和适用,以防止行使专有权和相关的禁制令要求可能造成的功能失调的影响。使用涉及复杂产品、非实践实体和标准必要专利的场景来说明该方法。关于在评估比例性时权衡和平衡利益,立场文件认为,作为原则问题,将专利权人的利益优先于侵权人的利益是不可取的,也是不适当的。此外,不仅要考虑纠纷各方的利益,也要考虑第三方的利益,特别是公共利益。关于专利纠纷中商业秘密的保护,立场文件指出了《商业秘密法》在程序上的不足,不足以充分保护被告的保密利益。它还指出了与“杜塞尔多夫程序”相关的一个潜在漏洞,可能会促进“钓鱼考察”。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信