tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post5664508951894752918..comments2024-03-29T11:10:02.290+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Big Data, products & processes: being a German patentee in the era of the Rezeptortyrosinkinase decisionsVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-12039649497037618532017-05-26T09:19:50.401+01:002017-05-26T09:19:50.401+01:00I agree with Anonymous at 12:16. Indirect infringe...I agree with Anonymous at 12:16. Indirect infringement under Sec. 10 requires that the means delivered are suitable and designed to use the claimed invention in Germany. That does not require that the means themselves are an element of the process claim, but they at least must relate to an essential element. The results that were delivered here are just the result of the patented process and were not used to practice the process in Germany. An example for indirect infringement in this case would be delivery to Germany of a specific detection kit (as in claim 12 of EP 132) that is used for the detection process in Germany.<br /><br />What is possible in Germany, in principle, is direct infringement of a method claim if some steps of the method are practiced outside of Germany but the commercial success and some steps take place in Germany, also if the steps are practiced by different persons (e.g. OLG Düsseldorf, InstGE 11, 203 - Prepaid-Telefonkarte). But if you take the limits to the protection of direct products of a process seriously that the Supreme Court outlined in Rezeptortyrosinkinase II, it cannot be sufficient for patent infringement in Germany if everything happens outside Germany but the taking of samples and commercial exploitation of the results (cf. OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of March 23, 2017, case no. I-2 U 5/17, para. 44, 48).Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13432459680630669777noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-35113825778552024092017-05-25T12:16:57.423+01:002017-05-25T12:16:57.423+01:00Could argue anything, but it such arguments won...Could argue anything, but it such arguments won't fly. 'Means relating to an essential element'? (a) It is not an element of the process, but the result, and (b) the process was conducted outside of Germany.<br /><br />There was a US case on the same point some time ago. Didn't fly there either.<br /><br />The suggestion on patenting a data sequence with a technical characteristic appears to be nonsense.<br /><br />Delivery to a customer outside of Germany with that customer subsequently importing the product into Germany, with the question being is the seller liable? Erm... that's a tough one!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-51631677975249228442017-05-25T11:46:06.230+01:002017-05-25T11:46:06.230+01:00So the results were not a product directly produce...So the results were not a product directly produced by the patented process. But could they alternatively be means relating to an essential element of the invention, under Sec 10(1)? One could argue the invention was put into effect in Germany when the results were provided to the customers. Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com