I INTRODUCTION

In Germany, the legal framework for intellectual property rights most importantly consists of the German Patent Act and the German Trade Mark Act. National competition (antitrust) law is codified in the German Act against Restraints of Competition (ARC). The ARC has been widely aligned to EU competition law, which directly applies in cases with cross-border effects. The essential provisions are Section 1 of the ARC, which corresponds with Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) (prohibition of agreements restricting competition) and Sections 19 and 20 of the ARC, which mainly correspond with Article 102 of the TFEU (abuse of a market dominant position).

Regarding the interface between intellectual property rights and competition law, there are no practically relevant specific statutory provisions. Rather, extensive case law has been developed with a view either to applying the cartel prohibition on certain types of agreements and restrictions, or to capturing certain types of behaviours as abusive. The core aspect of this IP-related competition law application is to comprehensively consider and duly respect the substance and scope of any exclusive right legitimately awarded to the IP owner.

For the sake of completeness, it should be noted that some IP-related statutory provisions, at least in appearance, have some similarity to competition law aspects; however, in substance they have a different, IP-related background. For example, Section 24 of the Patent Act provides for a compulsory licence based on public interest considerations. The German Federal Supreme Court has clarified already in its Standard-Spundfass judgment in 20042 with a view to competition law-based compulsory licences that 'these two legal institutions have different goals and different preconditions' and may thus be applied independently from each other. Also, Section 23 of the Patent Act sounds familiar in the context of standard-essential patents (SEPs), a topic currently at the very forefront of IP-related competition law, as it provides for the possibility of a declaration by the patent holder in relation to the German Patent Office that every interested third party is entitled to use the invention in return for equitable remuneration. The main purpose of this provision, however, is merely to reduce the annual renewal fees.

II YEAR IN REVIEW

During the past year, the application of IP-related competition law in Germany continued to be marked by various court decisions dealing with the assertion of SEPs, and thereby implementing and specifying the criteria for enforcing such patents, following the Huawei v. ZTE decision handed down by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), on 16 July 2015.3 This decision, rendered in preliminary proceedings based on a set of questions referred to the CJEU by the Regional Court of Düsseldorf in 2013,4 developed a set of criteria under which the proprietor of an SEP can legitimately, without violating Article 102 of the TFEU, seek an injunction based on such a patent (and claim for recall and destruction).

Regarding the time until the patent owner and plaintiff has to fulfil its fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (FRAND) obligations, the Regional Court of Mannheim has overruled its decision practice that the plaintiff has to fulfil these obligations before filing an action.5 The Court stated that, according to German procedural law, it could also be possible to accept fulfilling FRAND obligations after proceedings have begun, when certain conditions are met. In this regard, in a decision of September 2018, the Court concretised that the FRAND obligations may only be fulfilled after bringing an action if the patent holder re-establishes a pressure-free negotiation situation by suspending the process.6 The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf,7 on the other hand, in general allows the patent owner to make a FRAND offer after bringing an action, unless general German procedural law on delay is violated. Nevertheless, in its decision of 13 July 2017, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf stressed several arguments regarding why providing a FRAND offer after bringing an action should not be unlimitedly possible, but finally left the question open.8

With regard to the patent holder's obligation to provide a licence offer under FRAND terms to the willing patent user, it is further noteworthy that the Regional Court of Düsseldorf9 recently confirmed, in its decision of 8 January 2019, that a patent holder is in any case obliged to provide a FRAND licence offer even if licence agreements with other licensees are publicly available (e.g., on the patent holder's website).

III LICENSING AND ANTITRUST

i Anticompetitive restraints

In German law, anticompetitive restraints in licensing agreements fall under Section 1 of the ARC and Article 101(1) of the TFEU. This includes, inter alia, market and customer sharing, pricing, output limitations or no-challenge clauses.10 In this context, the Horizontal Guidelines of the Commission (2011/C 11/01) and Commission Regulation (EU) No. 316/2014 on technology transfer agreements (TTBER), which is applicable in German law according to Section 2(2) of the ARC, are of particular importance. Based on the TTBER, in particular, hardcore restrictions are of crucial relevance, such as the restriction of a party's ability to determine its prices when selling products to third parties, limitation of output, allocation of markets or customers, and restriction of the licensee's ability to exploit its own technology rights.

The Higher Regional Court of Celle decided in its decision of 14 October 2016 on several contractual restrictions in a research and development and technology transfer agreement between two parties in the sugar beet cultivation sector.11 The agreement involved various restrictions imposed upon one party, such as a far-reaching non-compete obligation and obligations to comprehensively transfer, or retransfer, the results of its research and development activities to the other party. On the basis of the TTBER and Regulation No. 1217/2010, the Court considered the restrictions in question partly as hardcore but nevertheless saw them as 'ancillary' to the competitively neutral main agreement between the parties and thus to a large extent compliant with Article 101 of the TFEU.

One additional IP-related highlight was the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf on the marketing of football media rights. The Court dismissed the appeal brought by one of the various third-party interveners, Sky, against the decision of the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) of April 2016 on the centralised marketing of media rights for the first and second German Federal Football League (Bundesliga).12 The FCO had considered the centralised marketing by the German Federal Football League to fall under Section 1 of the ARC and Article 101(1) of the TFEU, and had cleared it on the basis of a commitment decision pursuant to Section 32b of the ARC. The commitments, inter alia, referred to how the media rights in questions are to be structured in various 'rights packages' and included specific provisions on the tender proceedings, most importantly a 'no-single-buyer rule'. This rule aims to ensure, by way of a certain two-step approach, that no single undertaking would have a chance to acquire all rights for live broadcasting.

One of the joined parties of the FCO proceedings, Sky, which had acquired practically all live media rights in the previous tender, appealed against the FCO's decision, mainly attacking the 'imposition' of the no-single-buyer rule by the FCO on the German Football League (by way of accepting a corresponding commitment) as being an unnecessary and excessive restriction severely harming Sky in its rights and commercial interests.

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf dismissed the complaint in its decision of 3 May 2017,13 holding the complaint to be inadmissible.

The Court denied that the FCO's decision infringed any of Sky's rights as the decision itself had no legal effect on Sky since the decision's effects materialise only upon its implementation by a private third party – the German Federal Football League offering the media rights. However, even if one were to take these effects into consideration, the decision did not infringe Sky's rights as the no-single-buyer rule was obviously pro-competition, aiming to open up markets and increase competition – an objective clearly consistent with the legal framework and thus obviously not capable of infringing Sky in any of its rights whatsoever. In addition, the claimant was considered not to be affected sufficiently in its commercial interests. The Court already denied Sky's commercial interests in this context to be legitimate, inter alia, stressing that the no-single-buyer rule aims to avoid a monopoly-like situation in the relevant end-consumer market, and that Sky's interest in a tender without this rule thus consists in avoiding competition. Further the Court raised doubts as to whether the claimant's interests were 'directly' affected and stressed that Sky, in any case, would not be 'individually' affected since the no-single-buyer rule would apply equally to all potential bidders for the media rights concerned, in a similar way. The fact that the FCO in its decision explicitly referred to Sky when explaining its concerns was seen merely as a reflex of Sky having secured nearly all live broadcasting rights in the previous tender. Whether this past success might trigger the need for Sky to modify its business strategy now, in the light of a no-single-buyer rule, was not considered relevant by the Court. The Court stressed that media rights, from the outset, are only offered for a limited period, after which all market participants have to adjust their behaviour equally to the new tender proceedings, and the Court did not see any indication why claimant Sky would have been affected by the no-single-buyer rule in an appreciably stronger or structurally different way from its competitors.

ii Refusals to license

There are no specific statutory provisions regarding the refusal to license. Abuse of a market dominant position pursuant to Section 19(1) of the ARC is interpreted closely along the lines of its EU counterpart, Article 102 of the TFEU. In particular the conditions under which a refusal to license is deemed abusive derive from the case law of the CJEU, which has mainly been formed by the leading judgments in Magill 14 and IMS Health.15,16 Accordingly, a refusal to license may be abusive and a claim for a compulsory licence successful where (1) using the intellectual property right in question is indispensable for carrying out business on a neighbouring or downstream market, (2) the refusal to grant a licence prevents a new product for which there is a potential consumer demand, or (3) the refusal is not objectively justified and would exclude competition. According to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, a product is 'new' in this sense where, from a demand-side perspective, there is no substitutability between the product of the licence-seeking undertaking on the one side and the intellectual property right owner's existing product on the other side.17

As regards patents that have already been licensed out by the patent owner, a refusal to license may be abusive and thus lead to a compulsory licence if the licensing practice of the patent owner is discriminatory or exploitative under Sections 19 and 20 of the ARC or Article 102 of the TFEU.18

Refusal to license regarding SEPs is discussed in Section IV.

iii Unfair and discriminatory licensing

Unfair or discriminatory licensing practices can fall under Sections 19 and 20 of the ARC and Article 102 of the TFEU and may be considered as an abusive (discriminatory) behaviour by a market-dominant intellectual property right owner (see Section III.ii).

iv Patent pooling

In practice, the rules established at EU level apply.

v Software licensing

A case before the Regional Court of Hamburg19 dealt with the issue of an agreement between a software company and a distributor of used software according to which reselling without prior permission was prohibited. The court held that the behaviour was abusive under Sections 19 and 20 of the ARC and not objectively justified, referring to the UsedSoft judgment of the CJEU20 and stating that the applicable right was exhausted.

With regard to a market dominant software provider, the Higher Regional Court of Munich21 ruled in its decision of 23 November 2017 that, regardless of its market dominant position, an undertaking must be free to operate its sales and distribution system at its own discretion, which also includes the possibility to set different licence conditions for different customer groups. In the specific case, the defendant software provider ceased to supply the plaintiff with software solutions at special price conditions (i.e., at conditions applied to research and teaching institutions, such as universities). The defendant, thereby, refused to offer the special conditions to the plaintiff after finding that the plaintiff did not fulfil the defendant's set internal criteria under which special conditions for research and teaching institutions should be applied. The court held that refusing those research and teaching institution price conditions to the plaintiff did not violate German cartel law although the defendant software provider in the past had not consequently applied its own criteria with regard to the plaintiff.

vi Trademark licensing

In general, restrictions of competition in trademark licensing agreements are compatible with the cartel prohibition of Section 1 of the ARC and Article 101(1) of the TFEU if they are necessary to protect the continued existence of the trademark and legitimate interests for the restriction are given.22 Agreements on territorial protection, prohibition or restrictions on exercising, restrictions in quantity, reservation of customer groups, non-assertion and no-challenge agreements are principally deemed to be infringing Section 1 of the ARC and Article 101(1) of the TFEU.23

In practice, delimitation agreements are of particular importance at the interface with competition law, as these agreements typically aim to settle disputes between the parties. Further details are provided in Section VI.iii.

IV STANDARD-ESSENTIAL PATENTS

As mentioned above, in the recent past, the application of IP-related competition law in Germany has remained dominated by the German courts' implementation and concretisation of the decision of the CJEU in the Huawei v. ZTE case on the question of the circumstances under which the assertion of SEPs constitutes an abuse of a market dominant position in the sense of Article 102 of the TFEU, and of the safeguards under which such an assertion constitutes the legitimate use of a granted exclusionary right.24

i Dominance

The question of dominance linked to owning SEPs was not the subject matter of the questions referred to the CJEU by the Regional Court of Düsseldorf. Nevertheless, Advocate General Wathelet briefly commented on the issue by stressing that owning an SEP does 'not necessarily' mean that the patent owner holds a dominant position. The Advocate General went on to argue in a way that might be understood as him favouring a rebuttable presumption for market dominance as a result of owning an SEP; in any case, he stressed the importance for the national court to determine market dominance on a case-by-case basis.25 The CJEU did not deal with market dominance and confined his assessment explicitly to the criterion of an abuse in the sense of Article 102 of the TFEU.

German courts have not yet relied on a presumption of market dominance. In its decision of 26 March 2015 (i.e., prior to the CJEU's decision in Huawei v. ZTE of July 2015), the Regional Court of Düsseldorf 26 rejected the alleged infringers' antitrust objection, or 'FRAND defence', because it concluded that the plaintiff and patent owner could not be considered to hold a dominant market position. The Court stressed that there is no legal presumption linking SEP ownership and market dominance;27 rather, the existence of market dominance should be assessed on basis of the scope of the patent in suit and its actual significance in the relevant product markets. The court specified that an SEP leads to market dominance where the use of the patent is mandatory to enter the relevant downstream product market or where it is at least necessary to compete effectively in the market. Accordingly, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf stated in its decision of 17 November 2016 that a dominant market position of the patent owner has to be determined by the court, with the defendant having to bear the burden of evidence.28 Following this decision practice, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf recently recognised a patent holder who jointly licenses its patents with other patent holders via a patent pool administrative entity to be market dominant.29

In cases where the CJEU's criteria are considered to be fulfilled (i.e., where an abuse by the plaintiff and patent owner is denied), there is a tendency not to address the patent owner's market position and leave it open as to whether the patent owner actually is market dominant.30

ii Injunctions

The question of whether or not an SEP holder acts abusively within the meaning of Section 19 of the ARC and Article 102 of the TFEU by bringing an action of injunction against an alleged infringer has been dealt with by German courts for years. This case law has most importantly been framed by the Federal Supreme Court's decision of 2009 in the Orange-Book-Standard 31 case and a large number of subsequent cases of the instance courts.

Differing significantly from this German case law, the CJEU32 set forth specific requirements under which claiming for injunctive relieve (or recall or destruction) is not abusive under Article 102 of the TFEU:

  1. First, prior to bringing an action, the SEP holder must alert the alleged infringer of the infringement complained about by designating that SEP and specifying the way in which it has been infringed.
  2. Second, the SEP holder is obliged to provide an offer for a licence on FRAND terms after the alleged infringer has expressed its willingness to conclude a licensing agreement on FRAND terms. This offer must also be submitted to the alleged infringer prior to bringing an action.33 It has to be stressed that the CJEU corrected the wording of the reasoning after it adopted the judgment because of different interpretations on this point.
  3. If the infringer does not accept the offer, he or she is obliged to make, promptly and in writing, a specific counter-offer that corresponds to FRAND terms and, if the counter-offer is rejected, from that point on to provide appropriate security, in accordance with recognised commercial practices.
  4. Finally, where no agreement is reached on the details of the FRAND terms following the counter-offer by the alleged infringer, 'the parties may, by common agreement request that the amount of the royalty be determined by an independent third party'.

After the Huawei v. ZTE judgment was handed down, the German case law was initially focused on the question of whether some sort of 'transitional law' had to be applied to cases that were pending prior to the CJEU's judgment. In its judgment in May 2016, the Regional Court of Mannheim34 argued in favour of such a 'transitional law', and considered the plaintiff and patent owner in this case not to have acted abusively even though he did not entirely fulfil the CJEU's criteria as to the pretrial obligations; namely, the obligation to alert the standard user about the infringement by designating the SEP and specifying the way in which it has been infringed. The Regional Court of Mannheim mainly stressed that the patent owner, by bringing the action, had acted in good faith by applying the then existing German case law. The Court also interpreted the Huawei v. ZTE judgment as allowing the national courts to consider some of the CJEU's requirements not to be relevant, and based this interpretation, inter alia, on Paragraph 70 of the CJEU's decision, according to which 'it is for the referring court to determine whether the above-mentioned criteria are satisfied in the present case, in so far as they are relevant, in the circumstances, for the purpose of resolving the dispute in the main proceedings'. Nevertheless, in a later corresponding enforcement protection proceeding, the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe35 handed down a decision that criticised the first instance approach as such but indicated that it is necessary to differentiate between a potential abuse in bringing action on the one hand and asserting the patent abusively up until the end of court proceedings on the other hand.

Comparable to the approach of the Regional Court of Mannheim, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf 36 also decided in favour of a 'transitional period' in cases where the pretrial obligations set in the Huawei v. ZTE decision were fulfilled after bringing the action.

In a later decision, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf even stressed the possibility to fulfil the pretrial obligations after bringing the action also in cases filed after the CJEU decision. In this regard, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (and also the Regional Court of Düsseldorf)37 generally accepts that the patent owner can still make a FRAND offer after proceedings have begun if German procedural rules on delay are not violated.38

On the other hand, the Regional Court of Mannheim, which in the past has excluded the possibility of fulfilling pretrial obligations after bringing an action, explicitly considered changing its decision practice and allowing the patent owner to fulfil its FRAND obligations; in particular, revealing the calculation of the licence fee, after bringing an action.39 However, the Court stressed that this should not be seen as complete relativisation of the pretrial obligations and that certain conditions have to be met. In particular, in the Court's view, a patent owner who seeks to fulfil its pretrial obligations after bringing an action is obliged to re-establish a pressure-free negotiation situation (i.e., by suspending the proceeding temporarily) (according to Section 251 of the German Code of Civil Process) for the purpose of (settlement) negotiations. Against this background, the Regional Court of Mannheim40 in a later decision dealt with the question of under which conditions a pressure-free negotiation situation is given. It decided that a pressure-free negotiation situation is granted only if a reasonable time period to assess the plaintiff's licence offer as FRAND was granted to the alleged patent infringer before continuing the trial.

One other major issue is the question of whether the Huawei v. ZTE criteria must be fulfilled 'step by step' or whether a more general approach, weighing each party's activities, is appropriate. Both the Regional Court of Düsseldorf 41 and the Regional Court of Mannheim42 initially applied a more flexible approach in that they did not assess the FRAND character of the plaintiff and patent owner's licence offer in each and every detail. Following a more general assessment, the courts finally left it open whether the plaintiff's licence offer actually was FRAND and considered the relevant defendants not to have acted diligently by failing to swiftly provide a FRAND counter-offer. The competent Higher Regional Courts of Düsseldorf 43 and Karlsruhe,44 respectively, overturned this approach (in enforcement protection proceedings) and ruled in favour of a step-by-step approach according to which a plaintiff and patent owner's licence offer has to be scrutinised in detail as to whether it is FRAND; only upon such a FRAND offer are standard users and defendants obliged to make a FRAND counter-offer.45

In its recent decision of 8 January 2019, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf 46 also dealt with the question of whether the patent holder is obliged to provide a licence offer in cases where information about the patent holder's licence agreements or standard licence agreements are publicly available (e.g., on the patent holder's website). The patent holder and plaintiff argued that an obligation to provide a licence offer does not exist in the case of public availability of existing licence agreements or standard licence agreements. The plaintiff, thereby, referred to the Orange-Book-Standard decision of the Federal Supreme Court, which, in the plaintiff's opinion, continued to apply. In particular, the plaintiff held that the requirements set by the CJEU in its Huawei v. ZTE judgment should only apply in cases of information asymmetries between the patent holder and the alleged patent infringer in relation to closed licence agreements and applied licence fees. Nevertheless, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf refused to apply the criteria set in the Orange-Book-Standard case, confirming the infringer's obligation to provide a licence offer under FRAND terms regardless of the existence of publicly available information related to existing licence agreements. In this regard, the Court stressed that the Orange-Book-Standard decision took place long before the CJEU's Huawei v. ZTE judgment in which generally applicable criteria were set and that there was no indication in the CJEU's judgment that the set criteria shall only apply in cases of information asymmetries between patent holder and alleged infringer. Furthermore, in the Regional Court's view, the patent holder's obligation to provide a FRAND offer as set in the CJEU decision results from the fact that holders of SEPs are self-committed to licence every willing licensee under FRAND conditions.

Another aspect that has been discussed by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf in the past year is the interest of the patent owner on confidentiality regarding the revealed licence contracts and licence conditions.47 The Court basically ruled that the patent owner who signed a secrecy agreement with the licensee, as opposing party in the proceedings, can hardly prevent a possible third-party intervener who did not sign a secrecy agreement from gaining insight into the revealed licence contracts.

With regard to the SEP holder's obligation to alert the alleged infringer of a patent infringement, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf 48 decided that the infringement alert does not require a detailed (technical or legal) explanation of the infringement. In the Regional Court's view and, in particular, in contrast to the decision practice of the Regional Court of Mannheim,49 the patent holder and plaintiff shall not be required to point out the patent's standard essentiality or to provide a claim chart to the alleged infringer. In the same decision, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf also stated that the requirement of an infringement alert is even fulfilled if it comes from another group entity; in particular, from the patent holder's parent company. In conclusion, the obligation is also fulfilled in cases in which the infringement alert is sent to the alleged infringer's parent company. Furthermore, the Regional Court pointed out that the infringement alert may also be sent to the alleged patent infringer or its respective parent entity simultaneously with the licence offer. In this context, the Court also stated that the infringement alert must not necessarily be transmitted before any claim is filed (e.g., damage claims), but, in any case, must be brought before bringing an action for injunction.

iii Licensing under FRAND terms

A major issue in the field of SEP is the question of defining FRAND terms and conditions. Although a large number of German court cases have dealt with the FRAND defence so far, the exact determination of FRAND criteria remains open to discussion.50 One important aspect in considering the FRAND character of an offer is the established licensing practice of the licensor or of other market participants.51 Accordingly, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf defined the term 'non-discriminatory' to the effect that the patent owner has to offer the willing licensee a licence on conditions similar to those offered to other licensees or that the patent owner comprehensibly shows reasonable grounds for an unequal treatment. In this regard, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf considered a patent holder's licence offer as not being FRAND (i.e., being discriminatory from the outset due to the fact that the patent holder enforced its patent rights selectively). In particular, the Court objected to legal action being brought against the alleged patent infringer when no legal action was brought against the defendant's competitors that used the disputed patent without the respective licence. The Court considered such conduct as de facto granting of free licences to some competitors while demanding remunerated licences from others.

Concerning the fairness of the offered conditions, the Court also pointed out that a FRAND offer must, in any case, cover all relevant (legal) business activities of the licence seeker. Carving certain business activities out of the licence offer would be exploitative and, therefore, would not comply with the established FRAND criteria from the Court's point of view.52

The Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf 53 stated further that a judicial finding regarding a 'non-discriminatory' offer requires – especially with regard to the amount of the licence fees – specific submission of facts by the patent owner with respect to licence agreements with third licensees. In the Court's opinion, this would include specific statements to conditions agreed with other licensees as well as their importance on the relevant markets. Thus, the patent owner may not assert that a non-disclosure agreement with third licensees excludes a specific submission of facts.54 Further, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf stated in its judgment of 30 March 2017, that the higher the discount the patent owner grants to the licensee is, the higher the requirements to justify an unequal treatment of different licensees are.55 The Court considered several factors as relevant for determining the amount of the licence fee, such as quick acceptance of the licence and whether the licensee is the 'first mover'. However, in its decision of 17 November 2018, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf stressed that there is no requirement for a mathematically precise derivation of FRAND-compliant licensing fees. Rather, what is required is an approximate decision reliant on estimates and valuations. Thus, the Court confirmed that comparable licensing agreements can constitute an important indicator for the reasonability of the proposed licensing terms and conditions.56

V INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY AND MERGERS

i Transfer of IP rights constituting a merger

Under German competition law, the transfer of intellectual property rights can constitute a merger by way of an acquisition of control within the meaning of Section 37(1), No. 2(a) of the ARC if the acquisition relates to a substantial part of the assets.57

ii Remedies involving divestitures of intellectual property

In a clearance decision, the FCO58 decided on ancillary provisions, inter alia, with regard to intellectual property rights: the Funke Media Group intended to acquire assets of TV programme guides. The FCO found that the acquisition would have led to the strengthening of a collective dominant position of the acquirer. Therefore, the acquirer was obliged to sell intangible assets regarding TV programme guides.

VI OTHER ABUSES

An example of an exploitative abuse within the meaning of Section 19 of the ARC is the recent investigation of the FCO regarding Google. The FCO had to decide on Google's practice of displaying snippets of search results regarding news publishers.59 Google refused to pay a fee for the displayed content and did not purchase any licences for the content. As a reaction to this unauthorised use of the content, several news publishers filed a complaint to the FCO with regard to their respective ancillary copyrights. After examining the complaint, the FCO held that it was highly likely that Google's behaviour was objectively justified and therefore did not constitute abusive conduct within the meaning of Section 19 of the ARC and Article 102 of the TFEU.

i Sham or vexatious IP litigation

In line with EU law, it is accepted under German law that the alleged infringer can raise the objection that the patent holder's claim is abusive within the meaning of Section 19 of the ARC and Article 102 of the TFEU because of a 'patent ambush'.60 This means a situation where the patent holder does not disclose the existence of a patent application during the standard-setting process, and subsequently asserts that a patent is infringed.

In a civil case before the Regional Court of Düsseldorf,61 a holder of design rights regarding wheel rims claimed for injunctive relief regarding the use of design rights without a licence. The defendant argued that the assertion of design rights would be abusive in the sense of Article 102 of the TFEU because he had to produce parts that matched the car and would otherwise not be purchased ('must match' part). The court rejected this argument. With reference to the case law of the CJEU (Magill 62 and Volvo/Veng),63 the Court stated that the assertion of design rights can only be considered abusive in exceptional circumstances. The concrete design of the wheel rims is not technically necessary. It is possible, rather, for the defendant to produce wheel rims of similar quality, but with a different design. Beyond that, the Court held that it is acceptable for a customer to purchase a wheel rim of the claimant or a complete set of wheel rims of other producers.

Furthermore, in a case regarding the infringement of an SEP, the Regional Court of Düsseldorf stated that a patent ambush with the intention of demanding excessive royalties does not necessarily lead to the patent owner's loss of a patent law claim to a cease-and-desist order. Rather, the legal consequence would be the patent owner's obligation to provide an offer for a licence on FRAND terms to the alleged infringer.64 The Higher Regional Court supported the Regional Court's view in its decision of 9 May 2016.65

Another example for a possible abuse of intellectual property rights litigation is the BMW-Emblem case of the Federal Supreme Court.66 The claimant, BMW, filed an action against a producer of spare parts that, inter alia, produces and supplies BMW emblems without a licence. The court rejected the defendants and held that the action was founded. Additionally, in an obiter dictum, the Court stated that a manufacturer of spare parts for BMW that are visible (e.g., front or rear parts) could, under certain circumstances, be entitled to supply original BMW emblems from the intellectual property rights holder or at least grant the retrofitting by customers or by workshops on the customer's order under competition law.

ii Misuse of the patent process

In accordance with EU law, under the German provisions, the strategic misuse of the patent process can be deemed to be abusive (Sections 19 and 20 of the ARC and Article 102 of the TFEU).67

iii Anticompetitive settlements of IP disputes

Settlements of intellectual property disputes between competitors may, under certain conditions, constitute an infringement within the meaning of Section 1 of the ARC and Article 101(1) of the TFEU. In line with EU law, under German antitrust law, patent settlements are generally accepted as a compromise to a bona fide legal disagreement.68 If there are serious objective indications for the settled right and the restrictions remain within the frame of objective uncertainties, the antitrust prohibition does not apply.69

Agreements between undertakings that aim to prevent the access of substitutes to the market, such as pay-for-delay or reverse-payment agreements, especially the delay of generic drugs' entry into the market, also fall under Section 1 of the ARC and Article 101(1) of the TFEU.70

With regard to trademarks, undertakings also settle disputes on conflicting similar trademarks by 'delimitation agreements'. The compatibility of such agreements can constitute an infringement of Section 1 of the ARC and Article 101(1) of the TFEU. As a general rule, delimitation agreements regarding trademarks constitute cartel infringements if market sharing or other restrictions of competition are intended.71 In its decision in Winn & Coales v. DENSO, the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf stated that a delimitation agreement does not restrict competition if it is neutral (i.e., if it only specifies the existing intellectual property rights).72

In a further decision, the Federal Supreme Court stressed that a trademark delimitation agreement does not necessarily include a prohibition against advertising in the other party's business district.73 Thereby, it contradicted the decision of the Court of Appeal, which held the relevant clause to be an unlimited delimitation agreement also prohibiting advertising with clarifying additional wording in the other party's business district, and therefore inadmissible under antitrust law. In contrast, the Federal Supreme Court's interpretation of the relevant clause was that it had not been intended by the parties to prohibit advertising with additional distinguishing wording in the other's district.

VII OUTLOOK AND CONCLUSIONS

The development at the interface between intellectual property and antitrust law remains highly dynamic in Germany. It can be expected that the specific interface between patent and antitrust law, mainly with regard to SEPs, will remain of crucial importance and will probably also have some influence on similar cases in other Member States of the European Union.


Footnotes

1 Jörg Witting is a partner at Bird & Bird LLP.

2 Federal Supreme Court, judgment of 13 July 2004, KZR 40/02, Standard-Spundfass. On the differences between a compulsory licence based on Section 24 of the Patent Act and a competition law-based compulsory licence, see also BPatG, judgment of 31 August 2016, 3 LiQ 1/16 (EP), Isentress.

3 CJEU, judgment of 16 July 2015, C-170/13, Huawei Technologies v. ZTE.

4 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 21 March 2013, 4b O 104/12, LTE-Standard.

5 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 10 November 2017, 7 O 28/16.

6 Regional Court of Mannheim, decision of 28 September 2018, 7 O 165/16.

7 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 17 November 2016, I-15 U66/15.

8 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 13 July 2017, 4a O 154/15.

9 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 8 January 2019, 4c O 12/17; according to decision of 9 November 2018, 4a O 16/17.

10 See Nordemann, Loewenheim/Meessen/Riesenkampff/Kersting/Meyer-Lindemann, 3rd Edition, 2016, Chapter 3, Paragraph 14 et seq.

11 Higher Regional Court of Celle, decision of 14 October 2016, 13 Sch 1/15.

12 FCO, decision of 11 April 2016, B6-32/15.

13 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 3 May 2017, VI Kart 6/16.

14 CJEU, judgment of 6 April 1995, C-241/91 P and C 242/91 P, Magill.

15 CJEU, judgment of 29 April 2004, C-418/01, IMS Health.

16 See Wolf, Münchener Kommentar zum Kartellrecht, 2nd Edition, 2015, Section 19 GWB, Paragraph 33.

17 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 20 January 2011, I-2 U 92/10. See Kühnen, Handbuch der Patentverletzung, 11th Edition, 2018, Chapter E, Paragraph 245; see also Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 29 April 2016, I-15 U 47/15.

18 Kühnen, Handbuch der Patentverletzung, 11th Edition, 2018, Chapter E, Paragraph 247.

19 Regional Court of Hamburg, judgment of 25 October 2013, 315 O 449/12.

20 CJEU, judgment of 3 July 2012, C-128/11, UsedSoft.

21 Regional Court of Munich, decision of 23 November, 29 U 142/17.

22 See, e.g., Federal Supreme Court, judgment of 12 March 1991, KVR 1/90, Golden Toast; Higher Regional Court of Hamburg, judgment of 12 December 2013, 3 U 38/11, St Pauli II; Bechtold/Bosch, GWB, 9th Edition, 2018, Section 1, Paragraph 84.

23 See Jestaedt, Langen/Bunte, Volume 2, Europäisches Kartellrecht, 13th Edition, 2018, Nach Article 101 AEUV, Paragraph 1265.

24 CJEU, judgment of 16 July 2015, C-170/13, Huawei Technologies v. ZTE.

25 Advocate General's Opinion of 20 November 2014, C-170/13, Huawei Technologies v. ZTE, Paragraphs 57 and 58.

26 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 26 March 2015, 4b O 140/13.

27 See also LG Düsseldorf, judgment of 13 July 2017, 4a O 154/15.

28 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 17 November 2016, I-15 U 66/15.

29 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 8 January 2019, 4c O 12/17.

30 See, for example, Regional Court of Mannheim, judgment of 8 January 2016, 7 O 96/14.

31 Federal Supreme Court, judgment of 6 May 2009, KZR 39/06, Orange-Book-Standard.

32 CJEU, judgment of 16 July 2015, C-170/13, Paragraph 60 et seq, Huawei Technologies v. ZTE.

33 See Kühnen, Handbuch der Patentverletzung, 11th Edition, 2019, Chapter E, Paragraph 345, footnote 565.

34 Regional Court of Mannheim, judgment of 4 March 2016, 7 O 96/14.

35 Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe, decision of 31 May 2016, 6 U 55/16.

36 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 3 November 2015, 4a O 93/14.

37 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 13 July 2017, 4a O 154/15.

38 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 3 March 2017, I-15 U 66/15; see also Kühnen, Handbuch der Patentverletzung, 11th Edition, 2018, Chapter E, Paragraph 365 seq.

39 Regional Court of Mannheim, judgment of 10 November 2017, 7 O 28/16.

40 Regional Court of Mannheim, decision of 28 September 2018, 7 O 165/16.

41 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 3 November 2015, 4a O 144/14.

42 Regional Court of Mannheim, judgment of 4 March 2016, 7 O 96/14.

43 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 9 May 2016, 15 U 35/16; see also, judgment of 30 March 2017, I-15 U 66/15.

44 Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe, decision of 31 May 2016, 6 U 55/16.

45 See Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 31 March 2016, 4a O 126/14.

46 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 8 January 2019, 4c O 12/17, according to its decision of 9 November 2018, 4a O 16/17.

47 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 25 April 2018, I-2 W 8/18.

48 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 11 July 2018, 4c O 72/17.

49 Regional Court of Mannheim, decision of 29 January 2016, O 66/15.

50 See, e.g., Picht, Frandwars2.0 – Rechtsprechung im Anschluss an die Huawei/ZTE – Entscheidung; WuW, 2018, pp. 234-241; and Hauck/Kamlah, 'Was ist “FRAND”? Inhaltliche Fragen zu kartellrechtlichen Zwangslizenzen nach Huawei/ZTE', GRUR Int, 2016, pp. 420–426.

51 See Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 31 March 2016, 4a O 73/14.

52 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 11 July 2018, 4 c O 72/17; see also Kühnen, Handbuch der Patentverletzung, 11th Edition, 2018, Chapter E, Paragraph 332.

53 See Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 31 March 2016, 4a O 73/14.

54 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 17 November 2016, I-15 U 66/15.

55 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 30 March 2017.

56 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 9 November 2018, 4a O 16/17.

57 See Federal Supreme Court, decision of 10 October 2006, KVR 32/05, National Geographic I.

58 FCO, decision of 25 April 2014, B6-98/13.

59 FCO, decision of 8 September 2015, B6-126/14; see also Kersting/Dworschak, 'Leistungsschutzrecht für Presseverlage: Müsste Google wirklich zahlen? – eine kartellrechtliche Analyse', NZKart 2013, pp. 46–53.

60 See, e.g., Regional Court of Mannheim, judgment of 10 March 2015, 2 O 103/14.

61 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 10 March 2016, 14c O 58/15.

62 CJEU, judgment of 6 April 1995, C-241/91 P and C 242/91 P, Magill.

63 CJEU, judgment of 5 October 1988, 238/87, Volvo/Veng.

64 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 31 March 2016, 4a O 126/14.

65 Regional Court of Düsseldorf, decision of 9 May 2016, I-15 U 35/16.

66 Federal Supreme Court, judgment of 12 March 2015, I ZR 153/14, BMW-Emblem.

67 See Huttenlauch/Lübbig, Loewenheim/Meessen/Riesenkampff/Kersting/Meyer-Lindemann, Kartellrecht, 3rd Edition, 2016, Article 102, Paragraph 289 et seq; and Schnelle, 'Missbrauch einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung durch Patentanmeldungs – und – verwaltungsstrategien', GRUR-Prax, 2010, pp. 169–173.

68 See Guidelines on the application of Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to technology transfer agreements, 2014/C 89/03, Paragraph 235.

69 See, e.g., Federal Supreme Court, 5 July 2005, X ZR 14/03, Abgasreinigungsvorrichtung.

70 See Wolf, Münchener Kommentar zum Kartellrecht, 2nd Edition, 2015, Volume 1, Einleitung, Paragraph 1377 et seq.

71 Jestaedt, Langen/Bunte, Volume 2, Europäisches Kartellrecht, 13th Edition, 2018, Nach Article 101 AEUV, Paragraph 1270; Federal Supreme Court, judgment of 7 December 2010, KZR 71/08, Jette Joop.

72 Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf, judgment of 15 October 2014, VI-U (Kart) 42/13, Winn & Coales v. DENSO.

73 Federal Supreme Court, decision of 12 July 2016, KZR 69/14, Peek & Cloppenburg II.