Author
Abstract
German law has long been known for one of the strongest frameworks for injunctive relief worldwide. In view of this tradition, the 2021 introduction of a proportionality defence in Section 139(1) Sentence 3 of the German Patent Act (Patentgesetz) garnered significant attention in the legal community. Although the new provision has been discussed at length, Section 139(1) Sentence 3 PatG has not yet gained practical significance in case law.This article argues that the proportionality defence must be interpreted and applied in conformity with EU law. From the perspective of EU law, the proportionality requirement is a general and mandatory limitation for all remedies under Directive 2004/48, including injunctive relief in patent law. Member States and their courts may not derogate from the proportionality requirement, not even in favour of the right holder.It is doubtful whether the restrictive application of the principle of proportionality by German courts in patent law injunction cases is compatible with EU law. These doubts concern the balancing of several conceivable aspects of disproportionality and the requirement of an overall assessment of all circumstances in the reasoning of the courts. The doubts also concern the presumed priority of the FRAND defence over Section 139(1) Sentence 3 of the German Patent Act with respect to complex products. The assessment of individual aspects of the proportionality requirement by the German courts is also not free from doubt. This relates to spill-over effects of injunctions if patent protection concerns only a subordinate part of a larger product. Moreover, the criteria of the abuse of rights threshold for non-practicing right holders and the significance of subjective elements in the proportionality test are uncertain.In view of the uncertainties regarding the impact of the EU principle of proportionality, national courts should refer the points mentioned to the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) where they are relevant for the outcome of the case. Due to the high requirements for a finding of an acte clair, a court of last instance is obliged to refer these points to the CJEU.
Suggested Citation
Download full text from publisher
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to
for a different version of it.
Corrections
All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:jiplap:v:20:y:2025:i:12:p:775-782.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.
We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .
If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/jiplp .
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through
the various RePEc services.