Office

 


Mitscherlich has been providing legal services in Intellectual Property since 1896. Today, a dynamic team of attorneys builds upon this rich tradition to effectively protect our client’s IP for the challenges of the future.

Some clients have counted on Mitscherlich for more than 50 years. Our attorneys have advised them during their transition from small companies into large international corporations. Mitscherlich proudly shares with its clients these long stories of success – of ground-breaking patented inventions and famous trademarks. While the pace of industrial innovation is steadily accelerating, our principle of guaranteeing continuity has remained essentially the same for more than 100 years.

Mitscherlich was founded in Berlin in 1896 and moved to Munich in 1951 where also the German Patent and Trademark Office was established after the Second World War. The development and success of Mitscherlich has always been characterised by the stability and quality of the firm and the continuous relationship with our clients. Today, Mitscherlich is amongthe largest IP law firms in Germany, with approximately 30 patent attorneys and attorneys-at-law and a combined staff of more than 100 employees. The ongoing expansion of our prosecution capacity is demonstrated in the following graphs:


    A dedicated team with top legal and technical qualification offers close and personal service. The Mitscherlich team has a thorough understanding of the industrial sector and the technology concerned, with its inherent risks and prospects of intellectual property.

    Mitscherlich’s large prosecution teams are working hard to produce high quality patents, trademarks and designs in order to protect the R&D investments of our clients and ultimately safeguard the scope of protection against their competitors.

      A strong focus on direct client relationship enables Mitscherlich’s attorneys to better understand their client’s needs with regard to their specific technology and market environment. A company’s national and cultural identity are also important “soft” factors that have to be taken into account while we represent their rights and manage their IP portfolio.

      It is not only experience that counts today but also the ability to keep learning and to stay abreast with the fast pace of technical innovation on the one hand, and the development of IP law on the other. Mitscherlich’s partners regularly travel to visit their client’s factories and offices, even if it means flying to the other side of the planet. We prefer to stay in close contact with our clients in order to attain a better understanding of their ideas and concerns. We observe our client’s operations, listen to their needs and exchange innovative ideas with their legal/technical teams. At our presentations and in-house client workshops, we believe in demonstrating the concrete problem/solution approach through hands-on examples: A method that leaves nothing to abstract speculation and can be applied on the job.

      Direct and personal communication ensures that potential points of conflict are identified and solutions are sought before a real problem arises. This holds true for technical IP work as well as for personal relationships between a Mitscherlich attorney and a client. It works both ways.

        The strong techological background of our firm’s culture as a whole and of Mitscherlich’s attorneys and patent engineers in particular ensures that any field of technology can be covered by a qualified expert from within the firm. We consider it a privilege to serve a large number of globally active corporations, including medium-sized businesses whose patented innovations have led them to becoming market leaders in their particular niche.

          Its Munich office (opened in 1951) places Mitscherlich at an important junction of intellectual property prosecution and litigation:

          The headquarters of the European Patent Office (EPO) and the German Patent and Trademark Office (GPTO) are situated in Munich. While German is one of the official languages of the EPO, we, of course, also file patent applications in English and French.

          The German Federal Patent Court and the Munich Regional Court as well as the Munich Higher Regional Court with their busy patent and trademark chambers have increased Munich’s importance as a centre of patent and trademark litigation over the years.

            German court proceedings are well respected internationally; over 60 % of IP litigations in Europe are processed in Germany.

            German and international clients alike appreciate the professionalism of the judges and lawyers in this country, which ensures a high standard of legal safety. This results in decisions being more predictable. And this predictability is further sustained by the experience of our attorneys-at-law in all matters of patent, trademark and design.

            The IAA Frankfurt, CeBIT Hanover, IFA Berlin, BAUMA and ISPO in Munich are only a few examples of world-leading trade fairs in Germany. Mitscherlich’s attorneys are regularly active at international trade fairs, pursuing border seizures of IP-infringing goods for the firm’s clients.



                Team

                 


                Mitscherlich’s team of experts consists of German patent attorneys, European patent attorneys, European trademark and design attorneys and IP-specialized attorneys-at-law.

                Our patent attorneys and attorneys-at-law possess the highest degrees of legal and technical qualification, many drawing from previous careers in industry. Individual teams are composed on a case-by-case basis, according to our strictly client-oriented principles of service. We are looking forward to putting our expertise at your disposal!



                For many years, Mitscherlich has continuously been expanding its activities in the fields of electronics, communication technologies and software. With now more than 500 European patent applications filed each year, the electronics, communications and software department at Mitscherlich is the most active department handling cases before the European Patent Office. Our clients include major international corporations as well as medium-sized enterprises from all over the world, particularly from Europe, Asia and the Americas.

                Our electronics, communications and software team is comprised of several attorneys and engineers with university degrees in different fields.

                The technical background of the department’s team members covers in particular electrical engineering, physics, material science, computer science and all aspects of information technology.

                Mitscherlich has particularly thorough expertise in drafting and prosecuting patents, in providing strategic advice as well as in litigation and opposition in these fields. Over the last 10 years, more than 150 opposition and appeal cases were handled by Mitscherlich, which were related to patents directed to electronic or communication technologies that have become industrial standards. If required, Mitscherlich’s litiga-tion team supports our patent attorneys in asserting patents against competitors.

                design_big

                  Since Mitscherlich was established in 1896, mechanics has always been a mainstay in the technical fields of intellectual property handled by our firm. For many years, the mechanics department at Mitscherlich has established and continuously reinforced a professional team of specialized attorneys to individually and efficiently fulfil our client’s demands best. With now more than 400 European patent applications filed per year, the mechanics team is one of the most active departments at Mitscherlich. Our clients include major international corporations as well as medium-sized enterprises from all over the world, particularly from Europe, Asia and the Americas.

                  Our mechanics team comprises a large number of patent attorneys with university degrees in different technical fields, such as mechanical engineering, electrical engineering, material science and physics.

                  Mitscherlich has particular expertise in drafting and prosecuting patents as well as in opposition and litigation proceedings. Over the last 10 years, more than 120 opposition and appeal cases were handled by Mitscherlich which were related to patents directed to key technologies in mechanics. This has enabled the firm to gain outstanding experience by representing its clients in hearings at the EPO and GPTO in oppo-sition and appeal cases, which in turn has helped Mitscherlich to improve the advice it gives to clients on patent strategies.

                  If required, our attorneys-at-law support our patent attorneys to form individual litigation teams tailored to the particular needs of the client and to individual cases where patents are being asserted or defended against competitors.

                  design_big

                    During the last 10 years, Mitscherlich has been successfully expanding its life science and chemistry department. The technical background of the team members covers chemistry, biology, biochemistry and pharmacology. Mitscherlich has thorough expertise in these fields, particularly in drafting and prosecuting patents, counselling, freedom-to-operate analyses [FTOs] and other opinion work, arbitration, litigation and opposition proceedings.

                    Mitscherlich’s life science and chemistry department is one of the firm‘s most active departments litigating oppositions at
the European Patent Office, having handled more than 150 opposition cases over the last 10 years and adding some 20 new cases every
                    year. Their patent team has extensive experience in representation before the EPO in opposition and appeal cases. Furthermore, this insight enables Mitscherlich to give good predictions about the likely outcome of opposition proceedings, which in turn is very advantageous with regard to strategic advice, FTOs and other opinion work.

                    design_big

                      For many years, Mitscherlich has continuously expanded its activities in the fields of trademark prosecution and trademark litigation. With now more than 270 Community trademark applications (CTMs) filed each year, the trademark prosecution team is among the top ten firms filing CTMs in Germany. During the last ten years, Mitscherlich has handled more than 500 opposition cases at the German Patent and Trademark Office and the European Trademark Office, and also has taken several cases to the European Court of Justice on behalf of our clients.


                      Our clients include major international corporations as well as medium-sized enterprises from all over the world, particularly from Europe, Asia and the Americas. Especially in the last years, also the litigation practice of the trademark department has grown rapidly,. We are currently representing a considerable number of clients with lawsuits before the high courts in Germany. We are admitted to the bar of all higher regional courts within Germany. We also represent a high number of custom seizure requests, which we have filed on behalf of our clients in order to assist them with anti-piracy actions.

                      The trademark team at Mitscherlich is headed by Dr. Markus Graf who has been active in the field of trademarks for more than two decades. The other attorneys working in the trademark department are Mr. Jens Beder, Mr. Clemens Thun, Dr. Felix Wesel and Dr. Markus Bölling; they are supported by numerous paralegals and secretaries.


                      design_big

                        For many years, Mitscherlich has continuously expanded its activities in the fields of design patent applications and design patent litigation. With now more than 950 Community design applications (CDRs) filed in 2013, the design prosecution team at Mitscherlich is among the top firms filing CDRs in Germany. Our clients include major international corporations as well as medium-sized enterprises from all over the world, particularly from Europe, Asia and the Americas. The litigation practice of the design patent department has also grown rapidly in recent years.

                        We are currently representing a considerable number of clients with lawsuits before the high courts in Germany and we are admitted to the bar of all higher regional courts within Germany. We also represent a high number of custom seizure requests for design patents, which we have filed on behalf of our clients in order to assist them with anti-piracy actions. The design patent team at Mitscherlich is headed by Clemens Thun and Dr. Markus Graf, who have been active in the field of design patents for many years. The other attorneys working in the design patent department are Mr. Thomas Körfer, Dr. Felix Wesel and Dr. Markus Bölling; they are supported by numerous paralegals and secretaries.

                        German and international clients alike appreciate the professionalism of the design regime in Europe, which ensures a high standard of legal safety. This results in deci-sions being more predictable. This predictability is further sustained by the experience of our attorneys-at-law in all matters of design law.

                        design_big

                          For many years Mitscherlich has successfully assisted its international and national clients in the enforcement of valuable IP rights along with defending against unjustified accusations of infringement. The litigation team’s profound experience in infringement and validity proceedings allows its members to adopt a holistic strategy aligned with the clients’ priorities for each individual case. For multi-jurisdictional disputes, Mitscherlich can rely on the assistance of its established international network of highly specialized IP litigation law firms.

                          In patent litigation matters, Mitscherlich’s clients benefit from the close collaboration of accomplished attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys specialized in all technical fields. This one-stop shop approach facilitates quick and comprehensive counselling in all kinds of proceedings, including infringement actions, preliminary injunction proceedings, site inspection proceedings and nullity actions. For complex cases, a team of attorneys may be composed to ensure all pertinent legal and technical issues are covered and guarantee fast and efficient acting.

                          The Mitscherlich team is also fully prepared for representing clients before the new Unified Patent Court assuming responsibility for litigation on new Unitary Patents and for classical European Patents in the near future. In order to keep up to date with the latest developments the litigation team set up a working group dedicated to this exciting new area of European patent law as early as 2013.

                          In trademark and design litigation cases, a profound familiarity with the different courts’ peculiarities as well as ample experience with substantially or procedurally challenging cases enable Mitscherlich’s attorneys to develop strategies specifically tailored to the clients’ objectives. By actively participating in related administrative proceedings, the litigation team members also continuously deepen their expert knowledge of prosecution, opposition and invalidation proceedings, which often play an important role in a comprehensive enforcement or defence plan. Counselling and representation in straight forward main action and preliminary injunction proceedings are as much part of the team’s core expertise as, for example, combating infringing activities at trade fairs and parrying attacks based on trademarks or designs acquired in bad faith.

                          design_big



                              Practice Areas

                               


                              Mitscherlich’s reputation as a prime address for IP law in Germany is founded on securing, defending and asserting the patent, trademark and design patent rights of our international clients.

                              Our clients include major international corporations as well as medium-sized enterprises from all over the world, particularly from Euro- pe, Asia and the Americas. If required, our attorneys-at-law support our patent attorneys to form individual litigation teams tailored to the particular needs of the client and to individual cases where patents, trademarks and designs are being asserted or defended against competitors.

                              Technologies intertwine in a modern world. Below is a selection of legal and technical areas of practice at Mitscherlich from which we form teams to serve a wide variety of industrial clients.

                              The lighting industry is an exemplary sector where electronics and design merge to form a new product. An innovative lamp produces its characteristic light that translates into a certain look and feel in a room. Thus lighting is also a field where the IP rights of patent and design are both strategically used to distinguish ones product from that of the competition. We offer both services, founded on the expe- rience needed for sound strategic advice.

                                Clients from the Communication and IT sectors are being served by one of Mitscherlich’s largest practice groups. The size of this team is reflected in the technical flexibility we can offer in these fields where informatics meet electro-physics. Standard-related patent strategy and cross-national litigation are scenarios where we can offer the best advice for our clients.

                                  Software is protected by copyright, and while algorithms per se are not patent-protectable there are software programmes that are eli- gible to patentability. Only by demonstrating a certain degree of “technicity”, i.e. its ability to run on a computer, may patent protection be awarded. We know how to formulate the claims of your software patent to pass these hurdles and navigate through the examination procedure.

                                    How enormous amounts of data can be saved, intelligently arranged and speedily retrieved is one of the central challenges of the digital age. With our thumbs on the pulse of time in semiconductor technology, our team of specialised physicists handles the patenting of inno- vations in this field on a daily basis.

                                      In the field of energy, the focus of the public eye is shifting away from fossil fuels and nuclear power to the solar, the thermal and the forces of wind and water. How to generate, store and lead energy more cleanly, efficiently and at a reasonable cost are central technologi- cal challenges of our age. We are proud to contribute the patent work that safeguards important inventions in the field of energy.

                                        Tool making and special machinery are at the heart of the German Mittelstand where a number of medium-sized businesses have reached world-leading status in their market niche. We at Mitscherlich closely identify with this tradition and the engineering capacity behind it. Many of our patent attorneys are industry-trained engineers. They do the patent work that secures for our German and interna- tional clients a leading edge in a global economy.

                                          In today’s cars there is a range of technologies at interplay: From the robotics in the factory to tailor-made software for navigation, secu- rity systems and electronic assistants, up to the latest drive technology and other fuel-saving inventions. Having served clients in this field for decades, we know their multiple concerns and will form our team of experts according to the given task.

                                            What’s hidden inside an ultrasonic tooth-drilling device? A sensitive, software-driven machine perfected in many experiments, finally pro- tected by a patent or two. Our experts with their different technical specialisations won’t shy away from taking unconventional interdiscip- linary approaches to find the right patent solution for your individual device.

                                              At the heart of most newly created chemical compounds are process patents that protect the innovative steps of manufacture. An unc- lear numerical range might define the density of the central compound used, while the distance to the state of the art might be minimal … Sound familiar? Mitscherlich’s chemical practice team makes an extra effort and has the necessary experience to carve out a maximum scope of protection for your chemical patent.

                                                On its long way from the R&D stage to a patent-protected medicinal product, there are many turns to be taken. Our experienced experts in organic/inorganic chemistry, biology and life science help you make the right decisions, legal and technical, at every fork of the path in order to attain patent protection for your pharmaceutical innovation.

                                                  With now more than 270 Community trademark applications (CTMs) filed each year, the trademark prosecution team is among the top ten firms filing CTMs in Germany. During the last ten years, Mitscherlich has handled more than 500 opposition cases at the German Patent and Trademark Office and the European Trademark Office, and also has taken several cases to the European Court of Justice on behalf of our clients. Especially in the last years, also the litigation practice of the trademark department has grown rapidly. We are currently representing a considerable number of clients with lawsuits before the high courts in Germany. We also represent a high number of custom seizure requests, which we have filed on behalf of our clients in order to assist them with anti-piracy actions.

                                                    With now more than 950 Community design applications (CDRs) filed in 2013, the design prosecution team at Mitscherlich is among the top firms filing CDRs in Germany. We are currently representing a considerable number of clients with lawsuits before the high courts in Germany. We also represent a high number of custom seizure requests for design patents, which we have filed on behalf of our clients in order to assist them with anti-piracy actions. German and international clients alike appreciate the professionalism of the design regime in Europe, which ensures a certain standard of predictability, which is further sustained by the experience of our attorneys-at-law in all matters of design law.

                                                      Without the possibility of efficient enforcement against infringement, the value of even the most sophisticated IP portfolio is limited. Based in a country maintaining one of the most active IP court systems world-wide, Mitscherlich has for many years extensively assisted its national and international clients in litigation proceedings related to all kinds of intellectual property rights. Counseling and representation in straight forward main action and preliminary injunction proceedings are as much part of Mitscherlich’s core expertise as, for example, combating infringing activities at trade fairs and parrying unjustified attacks based on IP rights acquired in bad faith. For multi-jurisdictional disputes, Mitscherlich can rely on the assistance of its established global network of highly specialized law firms.



                                                          News

                                                           


                                                          On March 23, 2016, an amended version of the Community Trade Mark Regulation will enter into force. The amendments concern formal as well as substantial regulations throughout the complete legislative act. In the following, we will provide an overview on some of the practically particularly important changes.

                                                          1. New Names
                                                          The Office for Harmonization in the Internal Market (OHIM) will be renamed to European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO), and the Community Trade Mark (CTM) to European Union Trade Mark (EUTM).

                                                          2. New Official Fees
                                                          The reduced basic filing fee will only cover the designation of goods/services in one Nice class. Claiming additional classes will lead to additional fees. Renewal fees will also be calculated for each individual class covered by the respective trade mark. The following charts compare the fee structure under the present and future regime:



                                                          When filing a EUTM application in three classes, the application fees will thus be slightly higher than under the present system. However, the renewal fess will be reduced significantly. According to a present proposal of complementary administrative Guidelines, the renewal fees due under the present regime will apply to such CTMs for which the renewal period is already running when the new regulation enters into effect on March 23, 2016.


                                                          3. Renewal Date
                                                          Presently, renewal fees must be paid on the last day of the month in which the CTM’s protection ends at the latest. This final date will slightly change under the new regime. The new renewal date will then be exactly the day on which the EUTM’s protection ends. Again, the present proposal of administrative Guidelines suggests that the present legal situation
                                                          regarding the renewal date applies if the renewal period is already running when the new regulation enters into effect on March 23, 2016.


                                                          4. Specification of Goods/Services of CTMs filed before June 22, 2012
                                                          According to OHIM’s past practice, CTMs registered in respect of the entire heading of a Nice class were deemed to cover all specific goods/services falling into that class even if they might not be covered by the literal meaning of the heading. In its “IP Translator” decision of June 2012, the Court of Justice of the European Union considered this approach invalid. According to the court, a CTM covers only those goods/services falling under the literal meaning of the (narrow or broad) terms actually claimed.

                                                          The new regulation allows proprietors of old CTMs filed before June 22, 2012 which are registered in respect of the entire heading of a Nice class to seek protection in respect of goods/services beyond those covered by the literal meaning of the heading of that class, provided that those goods/services were included in the alphabetical list for that class in the edition of the Nice Classification in force at the date of filing. The proprietor must file a corresponding declaration with the EUIPO by September 24, 2016.


                                                          5. Relevant Genuine Use Period in Opposition Proceedings
                                                          If requested by the EUTM applicant, the party opposing registration of the mark based on older registered trade mark rights will have to furnish prove that, during the five-year period preceding the date of filing or the date of priority of the EUTM application, the earlier trade mark had been put to genuine use. The relevant period of genuine use will thus slightly change. Presently, this period covers the five years preceding the publication of the CTM application.


                                                          6. Opposition Period for International Registrations Designating the EUTM
                                                          The opposition period for an International Registration (IR) designating the EUTM will begin one month as of the date of its publication. In comparison to the present legal situation, this effectively shortens the opposition deadline, as today the opposition period for such IRs starts after 6 months as of the publication date.


                                                          7. New Certification Marks
                                                          A new category of marks will be introduced, namely so-called certification marks. Such marks will serve to distinguish goods or services which are certified by the proprietor in respect of material, mode of manufacture of goods or performance of services, quality, accuracy or other characteristics, from goods/services which are not so certified.

                                                          We will keep you informed on further developments.

                                                          Clarity is not a ground for opposition under the EPC. Based on this legal fact it has been a long standing tradition that amended independent claims which comprise features taken from granted dependent claims were not open to examination for compliance with Art. 84 EPC (clarity). Only claims that contained features taken from the description were examined for the requirements of Art. 84 EPC.

                                                          Only rarely the Boards of Appeal took the position that any amendment even it was based on features derived from granted dependent claims were open to examination for compliance with Art. 84 EPC (cf. T 1495/05, T 656/07, and most recent T 459/09).

                                                          Moreover, in decision G 9/91 (point 19) the Enlarged Board of Appeal had already stated in an orbiter dictum that

                                                          “[…] in case of amendments of the claims or other parts of a patent [in the course of opposition or appeal proceedings,] such amendments are to be fully examined as to their compatibility with the requirements of the EPC (e.g. with regard to the provisions of Article 123(2) and (3) EPC).”

                                                          However, the majority of Boards of appeal and, in particular, the first instances of the opposition proceedings usually did not interpret this statement in the decision G 9/91 as an instruction to examine the compliance of amended independent claims which comprise features taken from dependent claims with Art. 84 EPC.

                                                          Apparently, the divergent approaches of the various Boards of Appeal on this issue present conflicting case law and due to the fundamental importance of this question the Technical Board of Appeal 3.2.08 with interlocutory decision of 2 April 2014 decided to refer the following questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:

                                                          1. Is the term “amendments” as used in decision G 9/91 of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (see point 3.2.1) to be understood as encompassing a literal insertion of (a) elements of dependent claims as granted and/or (b) complete dependent claims as granted into an independent claim, so that opposition divisions and boards of appeal are required by Article 101(3) EPC always to examine the clarity of independent claims thus amended during the proceedings?

                                                          2. If the Enlarged Board of Appeal answers Question 1 in the affirmative, is then an examination of the clarity of the independent claim in such cases limited to the inserted features or may it extend to features already contained in the unamended independent claim?

                                                          3. If the Enlarged Board answers Question 1 in the negative, is then an examination of the clarity of independent claims thus amended always excluded?

                                                          4. If the Enlarged Board comes to the conclusion that an examination of the clarity of independent claims thus amended is neither always required nor always excluded, what then are the conditions to be applied in deciding whether an examination of clarity comes into question in a given case?

                                                          The decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal will be binding for both first and second instances at the EPO and finally create legal certainty for both patentees and opponents regarding the role of Art. 84 EPC in opposition proceedings.

                                                          The legal situation

                                                          At the trademark owner’s request, custom authorities in the member states of the EU are entitled to seize counterfeit goods being imported in the territory of the EU. Those goods can then be destroyed in a simplified procedure, if the declarant, holder or owner of the goods does not oppose this destruction within a period of 10 working days. A definition for “counterfeit goods” is provided by Art. 2 (1) (a) (i) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1383/2003:

                                                          “goods, including packaging, bearing without authorisation a trademark identical to the trademark validly registered in respect of the same type of goods, or which cannot be distinguished in its essential aspects from such a trademark, and which thereby infringes
                                                          the trademark-holder’s rights under Community law, as provided for by Council Regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 on the Community trademark(5) or the law of the Member State in which the application for action by the customs authorities is made”

                                                          Since, under German and European law, finding of trademark infringement requires use of the contested sign “in the course of trade”, thereby excluding private use. Before this backdrop, it was an open question whether or not custom authorities are entitled to seize and subsequently destroy single product imitations imported by private persons.

                                                          Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU)

                                                          In a judgment of 06.02.2014 (C-98/13, Martin Blomqvist vs. Rolex SA et. al.), the CJEU generally answered this question in the affirmative. With a view to one imitated Rolex watch imported by a Danish individual, the court found that the seller residing in Hong Kong infringed Rolex S.A.’s (Community) trademark rights by deliberately selling and sending the imitation to an addressee in the territory of the EU. With other words, the CJEU confirmed that border seizure measures can lawfully apply even if the transaction forming the basis for the product’s import constitutes a trademark infringement only by the seller and not by the buyer residing within the territory of the EU.

                                                          Practical Consequences

                                                          The CJEU’s clear statement brings about legal certainty in a formerly highly disputed grey area. At least from a legal point of view, there is no obstacle in having custom authorities in the EU member states seize and destroy single counterfeits imported by privately acting individuals under applicable European law.

                                                          Legal starting point

                                                          The “natural” means of protection for the design of, e.g., commodities or articles of daily use is the registered design right. According to Art. 2 (1) No. 4 German Copyright Act, works of “applied art” also enjoy copyright protection, provided they are personal intellectual creations with an individual character. However, fearing a devaluation of the legislative decisions incorporated in the differentiated regime of (German and European) design law, German courts only reluctantly granted copyright protection to works of applied art in the past. In particular, they asked for an enhanced degree of the object’s aesthetic content. Copyright protection of applied art thus required that the design in question significantly surmounted an average design.

                                                          Judgment of the Federal Supreme Court (BGH)

                                                          In a recently published judgment (judgment of 13.11.2013, I ZR 143/12 – Geburtstagszug) the BGH explicitly abandoned this restrictive string of copyright case-law. It found that regulations of design law and of copyright law have to be construed and applied irrespectively of each other and that there is no justification for higher hurdles for copyright protection of works of applied art in comparison to other kinds of works (e.g. literary works, photographic works). Copyright protection of applied art thus “only” required that the design reaches an aesthetic degree enabling those circles susceptible for art and accustomed to conceptions of art to speak of an artistic accomplishment.

                                                          Consequences for the protection of designs

                                                          The registered design right will remain the most important means of protection of the design of objects serving an intended use (e.g. commodities or articles of daily use) regardless of the BGH’s recent decision. This is true already in view of the fact that the enforcement of registered rights is much easier due to the binding effect of the registration act. Moreover, in its judgment the BGH already stated that only those elements of the respective design not serving an intended use can be taken into account when evaluating the design’s aesthetic degree and that thus the fulfillment of the requirements for copyright protection might be somewhat less likely with a view to objects serving an intended use in comparison to other works of art. With other words: without protection through a registered design right, the creator will never be sure that he indeed enjoys protection for his works.

                                                          Be that as it may, the BGH’s recent judgment improves the legal position of those designers and their successors not (or no longer) possessing design right protection for their valuable product designs in Germany. As long as the product’s design possesses a significant aesthetic degree and individual character, claims against imitators can be based on copyright protection.

                                                          On 1 January 2014, a new German design law came into force. As a major change to the former law, a new invalidity process is established before the German Patent and Trademark Office.

                                                          Until now, cancellation of a German design was only available by means of an expensive and time consuming invalidity action before German regional courts. With the coming into effect of the new design law, a request for a declaration of invalidity of a national German design can be submitted to the GPTO to initiate procedures that are comparable to the invalidity proceedings before OHIM. The invalidity request will be handled by newly created design departments which are equipped with three legally trained members who can consult a technical member for special technical questions. The design departments will decide on the invalidity of the design in written proceedings, oral hearings will take place under exceptional circumstances. A subsequent appeal can be submitted to the Federal Patent Court.

                                                          The proceedings will be comparably inexpensive with the official fees set at EUR 300 for the invalidity request field with the GPTO and further EUR 500 for a subsequent appeal.

                                                          Open-ended numerical range wording in product claims are common practice in many fields of technology. Examples are features with wording like “at least 20% of…”, “up to 500ml”, i.e. numerical ranges which are open at least one end of the numerical values.

                                                          1.Background:

                                                          The latest developments of the decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the European Patent Office have shown that the Boards of Appeal take a more and more severe view as to such language in view of Art. 83 EPC (European analogy of the enablement requirement in the US).

                                                          Art. 83 EPC (European Patent Convention) reads:

                                                          Disclosure of the invention
                                                          The European patent application shall disclose the invention in a manner sufficiently clear and complete for it to be carried out for a person skilled in the art.

                                                          While Art. 83 EPC relates to the requirements during the examination stage of pending European patent applications, the corresponding ground for opposition Art. 100(b) has a similar wording.

                                                          Relevant decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO:

                                                          The issue with open-ended numerical ranges essentially stems from the fact that the requirements of Art. 83 EPC have to be met over the entire range of protection.

                                                          2.1 Requirements of Art. 83 EPC have to be met over the entire scope of protection:

                                                          A landmark decision as to the applicability of Art. 83 EPC to open-ended numerical ranges in product claims is T409/91. This decision related to a claim having the following wording:

                                                          Distillated fuel oil … which has a wax content of at least 0.3wt% at a temperature of 10 degrees centigrade below the wax appearance temperature,
                                                          the wax crystals at that temperature having an average particle size less than 4000nm.

                                                          The application did not contain any disclosure enabling a skilled person to obtain fuel oils of the claimed type containing wax crystals of an average particle size of less than 1000nm. The Board decided that the requirements of Art. 83 EPC were not met, as the disclosure of the invention did not allow the person skilled in the art to perform the invention in the whole range that is claimed.

                                                          A further case T1008/02 referred to absorbent materials to be used e.g. for diapers. The claim wording assessed by the Board of Appeal had been as follows:

                                                          An absorbent composite comprising a porous fiber matrix and an amount of super-absorbent material…
                                                          characterized in that said super-absorbent material can absorb at least 27ml/g of an aqueous solution of ….

                                                          The Board construed the claim such that “at least 27ml/g” did not impose any upper limit as to the claimed range. No evidence had been produced by the patentee that at the priority date of the patent, other super-absorbents were directly available to the skilled person which met the remaining requirements of the claim and provided an absorption value considerably higher than the claimed minimum value of 27ml/g. Therefore, the Board decided that the patent did not disclose the invention over the entire range claimed and, consequently, the requirements of Art. 83 EPC were not met.

                                                          2.2 Claim construction can lead to inherent limitation of the open-end:

                                                          The decision T1018/05 gives particular guidance as to the importance of the scope of protection and Art. 83 EPC. In the Board’s view the principle that the requirements Art. 83 EPC have to be met over the entire scope of protection is not to be understood as also referring to those embodiments literally covered by the claim but which the skilled person would exclude as being outside the scope of “practical application of the claimed subject-matter” as the skilled person would construe the claim as not extending to those variants. This is the case with open-ended range claims if it is clear for a skilled person that the open-ended range is limited in practice. Such a claim must be seen as seeking to embrace values of the parameter as high as can be attained above a specified minimum level.

                                                          3. Situation in the US:

                                                          In a decision by the Federal Circuit, MagSil Corp. v. Hitachi Global Storage Tech., Inc., in 2012, the Court decided on the following product claim wording:

                                                          A device forming a junction having a resistance comprising:
                                                          a first electrode having a first magnetization direction,
                                                          a second electrode having a second magnetization direction, and
                                                          an electrical insulator between the first and second electrodes, wherein applying a small
                                                          magnitude of electromagnetic energy to the junction reverses at least one of the magnetization directions and causes a change in the resistance by at least 10% at room temperature.

                                                          The Court held that the asserted claims were invalid as a matter of law for lack of enablement. The Court found that the open-ended range recited in the independent claim was not enabled because the disclosure provided support for only a small portion of the claimed open-ended range.

                                                          4. Prepare fall-back positions for open numerical ranges in product claims:

                                                          Obviously, one conclusion of the above cited decision T 409/91 and T 1008/02 is that there should be fall-back positions (dependent claims, description) which allow to limit an open-ended range claim to a claim in which that feature is limited at both ends. This might, however, lead to difficulties if the absolute limit at a lower end or an upper end of a numerical range, which can be achieved with the disclosure of the invention cannot be expressed in hard values.

                                                          5. Can product-by-process also be a fall-back position to save open-ended range issues?

                                                          The Board of Appeal decision T 1947/11 hints at such a possibility-, which actually is a concrete implementation of the principles laid down in the above-cited T1018/05.
                                                          Claim 1 of the underlying European patent had the following wording:

                                                          Low-fat confectionery product obtainable by process of claim X consisting of a water-in-oil emulsion comprising up to 20% fat phase…

                                                          The opponent had pointed out that “up to 20% fat phase” constitutes an open-ended range wording.
                                                          At the same time the opponent established that there are certain low values as to the fat content which did not

                                                            use the technology disclosed in the opposed patent
                                                            produce a stable water-in-oil emulsion.

                                                          On the other hand, the opposed patent disclosed a process which allows obtaining a product having a stable water-in-oil emulsion having a fat phase content falling within the scope of protection, i.e. up to 20%. The examples demonstrated that values substantially lower than 20% could be achieved by the disclosed process.

                                                          The Board of Appeal decided that the product-by-process wording “obtainable by process of claim X” constitutes an inherent limitation of claim 1, i.e. claim 1 in the Board’s view is limited to a minimum fat phase amount obtainable by the process of claim X.

                                                          Therefore, a product-by-process wording may represent an additional possibility to fall-back positions expressed in hard numbers, in order to preempt problems as to Art. 83 EPC in the examination stage, or later on in the opposition stage.

                                                          Summary:

                                                            Claims with open-ended numerical ranges can lead to a conflict with the requirements of Art. 83 EPC

                                                            Therefore it is highly advisable to prepare fall-back positions to “close” the open end

                                                            A further approach to resolve such a conflict is to argue that the skilled person would construe the claim not in an open-ended manner, but as the open end inherently having a practical limitation

                                                            One specific implementation of the latter approach can reside in a product-by-process wording.

                                                          By Christian Rupp

                                                          Christian Rupp is a partner of Mitscherlich and has experience of more than 230 opposition cases at the EPO in a wide variety of technical fields.

                                                          Contrary to the online resources available at the EPO, until today files at the GPTO could only be manually inspected by either personally inspecting the files at the premises of the GPTO or by ordering copies.

                                                          The president of the GPTO has now announced that the inspection of patent and utility model files are possible as of January 7, 2014. The electronic inspection of files will be a free service of the GPTO.

                                                          However, this does by no means indicate that all files of all existing German utility models and patent applications and patents will be immediately available.

                                                          Rather, the availability is limited to the following files:

                                                            All patent applications and utility model applications for which a request for file inspection was submitted on or after January 21, 2013,
                                                            All granted patents and registered utility models published since January 21, 2013, and
                                                            All patent applications filed with the GPTO on or after January 21, 2013 that have already been published.

                                                          As to patents, also the details of any opposition proceeding will be available. As to utility models, the details of cancellation actions at the GPTO will be available.

                                                          However, contrary to the EPO, where also the complete details of appeal proceedings are available online, currently the appeal files of the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG) in Munich will not be available for online file inspection.

                                                          Furthermore, also the details of nullity actions filed at the German Federal Patent Court will not be available for online inspection.

                                                          Background

                                                          EPO’s opposition division found an opposition to be well founded and thus revoked the contested European patent. The Board of Appeal set aside this decision in the appeal instance and confirmed the patent’s validity to the extent of auxiliary claims filed by the patentee. The patentee was of the opinion that the opposition division had already infringed his right to be heard in the first instance proceedings and that the Board of Appeal did not sufficiently remedy this procedural misconduct in the second instance. He thus filed a petition for review of the decision by the Enlarged Board of Appeal. In addition, the patent proprietor objected the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s chairman due to an alleged suspicion of partiality.

                                                          Interim Decision on the Objection of the Chairman

                                                          In its interim decision of 25 April 2014, the Enlarged Board of Appeal confirmed an suspicion of partiality of its chairman and thus replaced him for the pending proceedings. The board did not call into question the chairman’s personal integrity. Rather, it detected a conflict with a view to the principle of division of powers.

                                                          In his function as vice president of the EPO’s Directorate-General 3 (responsible for the Boards of Appeal) and member of some administrative committees, the chairman is subjected to the EPO’s president’s power to direct and thus incorporated in EPO’s administrative hierarchy. On the other hand, as the chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal he shall impartially and independently keep watch over the legality of this very administration’s activities. In the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s view, this potential conflict of interests gave rise to a more or less general suspicion of partiality.

                                                          Practical Consequences and Comments

                                                          In view of the fact that the Enlarged Board of Appeal’s findings are more or less of general nature, it is hardly conceivable that its present chairman will be able to participate in any further proceedings on petitions against the Boards’ of Appeals decisions. The EPO’s general practice, that usually the vice president of Directorate-General 3 becomes elected chairman of the Enlarged Board of Appeal, will therefore most likely be changed in the near future.

                                                          Insiders assume that this new interim decision might have been triggered by an internal opposition against EPO’s president, whose striving for efficiency is subject to certain criticism. Particularly remarkable is the unprecedented strong and unambiguous wording criticizing the present linkage between administrative and judicial functions within the EPO system.

                                                          The legal situation
                                                          In order to remain valid and enforceable, registered trademarks must be genuinely used on the market by their owner or with his consent. Genuine use can also be found if the trademark is used in a form differing in elements which do not alter the distinctive character of the mark in the form in which it was registered, Art. 26 (3) 1st sentence of the German Trademark Act (Markengesetz), Art. 15 (1) (a) Community Trademark Regulation. According to Art. 26 (3) 2nd sentence of the German Trademark Act, this rule also applies if the actually used, slightly differing sign is also registered as a trademark.
                                                          In para. 86 of its “BAINBRIDGE” judgment of September 13, 2007 (C-234/06 P), the European Court of Justice remarked more or less obiter dicta: “In any event, while it is possible, as a result of the provisions referred to in paragraphs 81 and 82 of the present judgment, to consider a registered trade mark as used where proof is provided of use of that mark in a slightly different form from that in which it was registered, it is not possible to extend, by means of proof of use, the protection enjoyed by a registered trade mark to another registered mark, the use of which has not been established, on the ground that the latter is merely a slight variation on the former.”

                                                          This comment triggered a fierce discussion between the German courts and scholars on the compliance of Art. 26 (3) 2nd sentence of the German trademark act with the binding regulations of the European Trademark Directive (present version: Directive 2008/95/EC). While the Higher Regional Court in Karlsruhe (OLG Karlsruhe, judgment of January 26, 2011; 6 U 27/10) confirmed this German regulation’s compliance with EU law, the Higher Regional Court in Cologne (OLG Köln, judgment May 20, 2009; 6 U 195/08) denied it and found that use of a trademark in its registered form cannot constitute genuine use of a second registered mark, regardless of the significance of the differences between both registered signs.

                                                          The German Federal Supreme Court’s (BGH) present decision
                                                          With a decision of August 17, 2011, (I ZR 84/09 – PROTI) in the appeal proceedings against the Higher Regional Court in Cologne’s judgment the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) now asked the European Court of Justice several questions on the compliance of Art. 26 (3) 2nd sentence German Trademark Act with the European Trademark Directive. In para. 22 of this decision the court provides its opinion that, generally speaking, such compliance can be confirmed. However, the court proposes to deny applicability of this regulation in case that the trademark(s) differing from the (also registered) used form of the sign have been registered only with the aim of expanding the scope of protection of the trademark actually used (defensive marks).

                                                          Relevance of the ECJ’s answers to the BGH’s questions
                                                          The European Court of Justice’s answers to the questions raised by the German Federal Supreme Court will be very important for present and future trademark portfolio strategies. If, in the worst case, the ECJ did not share the BGH’s legal opinion, but concurred with the Higher Regional Court in Cologne, problematic situations would arise in particular in connection with the trademark owner’s modernization of well-established old trademarks. If the modernized versions are also registered as trademarks, their use would not be deemed as genuine use also of the non-modernized old marks. The latter would then become subject to cancellation actions after a period of five years.

                                                          The plaintiff filed within a multiple design patent application the complete form of a pencil. The pencil consisted of a spiral at the upper part of the pencil and an additional holding clip. In addition, the plaintiff registered the upper part of the pencil showing the spiral without a clip. The defendant filed a legal action against the use inter alia of the pencil design.

                                                          The question whether the overall design of the defendant’s pencil is an infringement of design No. 1 was left open by the Federal Supreme Court. The Court rather considered the spiral area of the defendant’s design probably to be a design patent infringement of design No. 2 and referred the case back to the Higher Regional Court. This case is of high interest since the Federal Supreme Court argued that if a separate design for a part of a product has been registered (here: an intermediate portion of a pencil, design No. 2), then it has to be compared with the respective part of the defendant’s products, i.e. only the two spiral areas have to be compared. The Federal Supreme Court also argued that the additional holding clip in the defendant’s product does not have to be taken into account when comparing the two spiral areas of the pencil since the spiral area of the pencil only has to be compared with the spiral area of the defendant’s pencil.

                                                          Of course, the decisions in such design patent cases always depend on the specific facts of a legal case, but in this legal case the German Federal Supreme Court decided for the first time that an isolated design patent only showing a part of a product can be subject to a design patent right and only has to be compared with this specific part of the design shown in a defendant’s product.

                                                          Our advice: When filing a design patent for specific designs or shapes of a product not only the overall design should be filed and details of the design as parts of the design patent, but additional isolated design patents for design elements of the product, which are of importance (such as switches, loudspeakers etc.) should be registered.



                                                          Jobs

                                                           


                                                          Wir sind eine renommierte, international tätige Kanzlei von Patent- und Rechtsanwälten im Zentrum von München. Die Mandanten unseres Büros sind in der Mehrzahl international tätige Firmen aus dem In- und Ausland. Mitscherlich setzt sich aus sieben Partnern und 100 Mitarbeitern zusammen.

                                                          Zur Verstärkung unseres Teams suchen wir eine/n

                                                          mit breit gefächertem technischen Interesse insbesondere auf dem Gebiet der Elektrotechnik, Informationstechnologie, Mechanik oder Chemie sowie guten Englischkenntnissen:

                                                          • als Kandidaten zur Ausbildung zum Deutschen und Europäischen Patentanwalt, und
                                                          • als Patent-Ingenieure zur sachlichen Bearbeitung von deutschen und internationalen Patentanmeldungen.
                                                          • als Deutscher Patentanwalt und/oder Europäischer Patentanwalt zur sachlichen Tätigkeit auf dem Gebiet des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes

                                                          Einsteiger/-innen auf dem Gebiet des Gewerblichen Rechtschutzes werden gerne eingearbeitet.


                                                          Wir sind eine international tätige Kanzlei von Patent- und Rechtsanwälten im Zentrum von München und betreuen unsere Mandantschaft in allen Aspekten des gewerblichen Rechtsschutzes. Wir decken sämtliche technischen Gebiete ab; unser Schwerpunkt liegt jedoch im Bereich Nachrichtentechnik und Informationstechnik. Alle Patentanwälte sind auch als Europäische Vertreter zugelassen.

                                                          Mandanten unseres Büros sind in der Mehrzahl international tätige Firmen im In- und Ausland.

                                                          Unser Team setzt sich aus acht Partnern und über 80 Mitarbeitern zusammen.
                                                          Wir suchen Physiker und Ingenieure, um diese als Nachwuchskräfte für unser Büro zum Patentanwalt und zum Europäischen Patentvertreter auszubilden.

                                                          Zu den Aufgaben des Patentanwaltes gehört das Ausarbeiten von Schutzrechtsanmeldungen, das Verteidigen von Schutzrechten seiner Mandanten sowie die Unterstützung der Mandanten bei Angriffen auf fremde Schutzrechte.

                                                          Ein weiterer Aufgabenbereich betrifft die Beratung der Mandanten im Hinblick darauf, ob geplante Produkte fremde Schutzrechte verletzen oder ob Produkte von Wettbewerbern die eigenen Schutzrechte verletzen.

                                                          Um einen geographisch möglichst umfangreichen Schutz zu erhalten, werden Schutzrechte nicht nur im Inland, sondern häufig auch im Ausland (Europa, USA, Japan usw.) angemeldet. Der Patentanwalt muss daher meistens eine umfangreiche Korrespondenz mit ausländischen Patentämtern bzw. Kollegen in aller Welt führen. Die Korrespondenz erfolgt in der Regel in englischer Sprache.

                                                          Da die Mandanten der Patentanwälte meistens nicht am Ort des Büros ansässig sind, beschränkt sich die Tätigkeit des Patentanwalts nicht auf sein Büro, sondern bedingt auch entsprechende Reisen zu den Mandanten, häufig auch ins Ausland.

                                                          Der Patentanwalt ist vor den deutschen Patentbehörden vertretungsberechtigt. Mit der Zusatzqualifikation des Europäischen Patentvertreters ist der Patentanwalt auch vor dem Europäischen Patentamt vertretungsberechtigt.

                                                          Der Patentanwalt ist Unternehmer und sein eigener Chef. Der freie Beruf garantiert einen direkten Bezug zwischen Einsatz und Erfolg. Der Kontakt mit kreativen Menschen, neuester Technik und ständig wechselnden Problemen gewährleisten ein interessantes und ausgefülltes Berufsleben.

                                                          Die meisten Patentanwälte schließen sich – wie auch in unserem Fall – zu Sozietäten zusammen und üben ihren freien Beruf gemeinsam aus. Sie können auf diese Weise großen Firmen ein weites Spektrum verschiedener Fachrichtungen anbieten. Daneben mindert der Zusammenschluß das eigene Risiko bei Krankheit und Urlaub, ohne daß die persönlichen Gestaltungsmöglichkeiten in ernst zu nehmender Weise eingeschränkt werden.

                                                          Der Beruf des Patentanwalts ist eine interessante Mischung aus Naturwissenschaften, Jura, Sprachen und Betriebswirtschaft. Der Patentanwalt muß neueste Erfindungen und technische Probleme in aller Tiefe verstehen und in der Lage sein, den abstrakten Kern zu erkennen. Er muß ferner seine Gedanken klar und verständlich in deutscher und englischer Sprache formulieren können. Nicht zuletzt muß der Patentanwalt kontaktfreudig und die Fähigkeit haben, ein vertrauensvolles Verhältnis zu vorhandenen und zukünftigen Mandanten aufzubauen. Sein Büro muß der Patentanwalt nach unternehmerischen Gesichtspunkten und mit guter Menschenführung organisieren.

                                                          Die Nachfrage nach jungen Patentassessoren und Patentanwälten, insbesondere der von uns bevorzugten Fachrichtungen, ist sowohl seitens der freien Patentanwaltschaft als auch seitens der Industrie sehr groß. Der Grund für die hohe Nachfrage ist vor allem das stürmische Wachstum innovativer Industriebereiche im In- und Ausland.

                                                          Zur Zeit sind in Deutschland ca 2.300 Patentanwälte zugelassen. Die Zahl der in Deutschland zugelassenen Rechtsanwälte ist etwa um den Faktor 100 höher.

                                                          Da der Beruf des Patentanwalts eng mit der innovativen Entwicklung in Industrie und Gesellschaft verbunden ist, kann davon ausgegangen werden, dass dieser Berufsstand weiterhin seine soziale Berechtigung und gesellschaftliche Reputation behält, und es ist zu erwarten, dass er auch mögliche gesellschaftspolitische Änderungen unbeschadet überstehen wird.

                                                          Die Verdienstmöglichkeiten für Patentanwälte waren – jedenfalls in der Vergangenheit – überdurchschnittlich. Der durch die besonders lange Ausbildung bedingte Einkommensnachteil konnte bisher in der Regel in wenigen Jahren aufgeholt werden.

                                                          Wir bilden unsere jungen Kollegen zum Patentanwalt und zusätzlich zum Europäischen Patentvertreter aus. Das setzt ein technisches Diplom der Fakultät Physik oder Elektrotechnik an einer deutschen oder an einer vergleichbaren ausländischen Universität oder Technischen Hochschule voraus. Für Absolventen von Fachhochschulen gibt es Sonderbestimmungen, die hier nicht erläutert werden sollen.

                                                          Die Patentämter verlangen ferner eine einjährige Industrietätigkeit. Praktika u. dgl. gelten in der Regel als anrechenbare Tätigkeit.

                                                          Vorbedingung für die Ausbildung in unserem Büro sind ferner ausgezeichnete englische Sprachkenntnisse sowie möglichst auch Sprachkenntnisse in französischer Sprache.

                                                          Eine Promotion kann von Vorteil sein. Wir geben jedoch einem möglichst frühen Berufseintrittsalter den Vorzug.

                                                          Die Ausbildungsdauer ist mindestens drei Jahre. Die meisten Patentanwaltskandidaten ziehen es vor, zunächst zum frühestmöglichen Zeitpunkt – nach drei Jahren – die Prüfung zum Europäischen Patentvertreter abzulegen und ein Jahr später – also nach vier Jahren – die Prüfung zum Patentanwalt. Die Ausbildung in unserem Büro erfolgt durch einen erfahrenen Anwalt, der den jungen Kollegen in alle vorkommenden Anwaltstätigkeiten einbindet.

                                                          Die ersten drei Jahre Ausbildungszeit erfolgen in unserem Büro. Am Ende des dritten Ausbildungsjahres kann der Kandidat die Prüfungen zum Europäischen Patentvertreter ablegen. Dies ist der frühestmögliche Zeitpunkt, den das Europäische Patentamt zulässt.

                                                          Die Ausbildung im letzten Ausbildungsjahr vor der Prüfung zum Patentanwalt ist eine Referendartätigkeit beim Deutschen Patent- und Markenamt, beim Bundespatentgericht oder bei einem Landgericht für Patentstreitsachen.

                                                          Die bei uns in Ausbildung befindlichen zukünftigen Kollegen beziehen in der Zeit, in der sie in unserer Kanzlei tätig sind, ein angemessenes Gehalt. Im letzten Ausbildungsjahr, in der die Anwaltskandidaten eine Referendartätigkeit beim Patentamt oder beim Gericht absolvieren müssen, bieten wir ihnen die Möglichkeit, ihren Unterhalt durch freiberufliche Arbeit für unser Büro zu verdienen.

                                                          Unser Hauptinteresse bei der Ausbildung jungen Kollegen besteht darin, unter diesen zukünftige Partner für unsere Anwaltsozietät zu finden. Wir sind deshalb bestrebt, unseren Kandidaten eine möglichst gute und umfassende Ausbildung zukommen zu lassen.

                                                          Sollte Sie das vorstehend beschriebene Berufsbild des Patentanwalts bzw. des Europäischen Patentvertreters ansprechen, so wenden Sie sich bitte an unseren Partner, Herrn Dr. Markus Graf (Tel. 089-55 23 10), oder schreiben Sie uns. Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Kontaktaufnahme.

                                                          mit sehr guten Deutsch- und Englischkenntnissen sowie PC-Erfahrung für die zentrale Fristenabteilung oder zur Mitarbeit in den Patentabteilungen.

                                                          mit sehr guten Deutsch- und Englischkenntnissen sowie PC-Erfahrung für die Sachbearbeitung im Patentbereich.

                                                          Berufsanfänger/innen arbeiten wir gerne ein.

                                                          Realschulabschluss oder Abitur und gute Englischkenntnisse sind Voraussetzung.


                                                          Ein/e zukünftige/r Patentanwaltsfachangestellte/r unterstützt Patentanwälte bei rechtlichen Dienstleistungen, z.B. das Bearbeiten von Patent-, Marken- und Gebrauchsmusteranmeldungen für das Deutsche Patent- und Markenamt und das Europäische Patentamt und schreibt nach Diktat Schriftsätze und Briefe auf Deutsch und Englisch, die hauptsächlich juristischen oder technisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Inhalts sind. Daneben führt sie/er organisatorische und kaufmännische Arbeiten aus wie das Errechnen von Gebühren, die Überwachung von Post-Ein- und Ausgang, die Fristenkontrolle zur rechtzeitigen Wiedervorlage, damit die Anwälte entsprechende Schritte veranlassen können, das Anlegen von Akten und deren Archivierung nach Abschluss der Fälle.

                                                          Während Ihrer Ausbildung werden Sie selbstverständlich sorgfältigst in all diesen Arbeitsbereichen ausgebildet. Es erwartet Sie ein interessanter, abwechslungsreicher und sicherer Arbeitsplatz.

                                                          Die Hochschulreife/Abitur oder einen sehr guten mittleren Schulabschluss vorweisen, Sicherheit in Grammatik und Rechtschreibung besitzen und über sehr gute Englischkenntnisse in Wort und Schrift verfügen.

                                                          Der Umgang mit dem Computer und Textverarbeitungsprogrammen sollte selbstverständlich sein.
                                                          Zuverlässigkeit, Teamfähigkeit und ein ausgeprägter Ordnungssinn tragen sicherlich zur Freude an diesem anspruchsvollen Ausbildungsberuf bei, der besonders für Abiturienten eine Alternative zum Studium darstellt.

                                                          Die Ausbildungsdauer beträgt in der Regel drei Jahre, sie kann aber auf Antrag um maximal ein Jahr verkürzt werden, Vorbildung und/oder Schulabschluss sind hier ausschlaggebend.

                                                          Bei entsprechender Eignung sind wir natürlich sehr daran interessiert, dass Sie auch nach Ihrer Ausbildung bei uns bleiben.

                                                          Sie üben einen Beruf aus, der mit hoher Verantwortung einhergeht und deswegen überdurchschnittlich dotiert wird.

                                                          Dann wenden Sie sich bitte an unseren Partner, Herrn Dr. Markus Graf (Tel 089-552310), oder schreiben Sie uns.

                                                          Wir freuen uns auf Ihre Kontaktaufnahme.



                                                          Schriftliche Bewerbungen richten Sie bitte an:


                                                          Mitscherlich PartmbB
                                                          Sonnenstrasse 33
                                                          80331 München

                                                          oder gerne auch per E-Mail an
                                                          personalabteilung@mitscherlich.de



                                                          Contact

                                                           


                                                          • Mitscherlich PartmbB
                                                          • Sonnenstraße 33
                                                          • 80331 Munich, Germany
                                                          • T +49 89 55231-0
                                                          • F +49 89 5502435
                                                          • info@mitscherlich.de