5.6.1 Key features in patent proceedings and differences to a trial-based system
Patent infringement actions are genuine civil actions whose procedure is governed by the German Code of Civil Procedure (“Zivilprozessordnung”).93 Further basic provisions are contained in the Courts Constitution Act (“Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz”).94 The German Patent Act, however, also provides for a number of specific procedural elements that supplement the general provisions on civil procedure for patent infringement cases (e.g., Section 140c on pretrial inspection orders). One characteristic fundamentally distinguishes German civil actions (of continental European style) from Anglo-American civil actions, and appreciating this distinction is a way to summarize the key features of a German patent infringement action that will be addressed in this section: German civil actions do not take a trial-based form.
In a typical Anglo-American trial, the facts are presented by the parties to the fact finder through evidence, particularly party-retained expert witnesses, during the main trial hearing rather than through written pleadings.95 This trial typically takes some days – sometimes weeks or months – depending on the amount and complexity of the evidence. Pretrial discovery and pretrial motions (motions to dismiss or summary judgment motions) are important in such a trial-based process.
By contrast, none of these features are present in German civil litigation, with the absolutely rare exception of court-appointed experts and the rare necessity to submit party expert opinions. There are no juries, so the bench (consisting of specialized judges) is the only fact finder and final decision-maker. The proceedings are front-loaded, and most of the input comes through written briefs filed by the parties. There is typically only one final and very dense and concise substantive hearing toward the end of the process. This hearing is only rarely about evidence; in most cases, it is on claim construction and infringement as well as validity. However, validity is only at stake with regard to the decision whether the court, if it finds an infringement of the patent, should stay the proceedings with regard to parallel validity proceedings before the EPO or the FPC pursuant to Section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure. While these arguments are typically highly fact-specific and therefore technical, the basic technical facts are mostly not in dispute between the parties but rather the correct interpretation of those facts for the purpose of infringement (based on proper claim construction) and validity (based on the proper claim construction and the proper determination of the disclosure of the prior art references). In this process, there are, for the most part, no pretrial motions that could result in early dismissal of the action before the final hearing. Thus, any lack of “conclusiveness” (“Schlüssigkeit”) will only be identified and disposed of by way of dismissing the case at the end of the regular process (i.e., following the briefing and the final hearing).
As there is no specific fact finder (jury), there are no early hearings on certain issues of law, like the “Markman hearing” on claim construction.96 As the substantive input is fed into proceedings by the parties not through the evidence but through the mostly written party submissions, experts do not play an essential role, and there is no cross-examination of party-appointed experts like in a trial-based system. The bench can, however, resort to independent (technical) experts if relevant facts are in dispute between the parties, but this is the exception.
There is also no general discovery system. Rather, there are limited and specific instruments for the plaintiff to discover facts that are not publicly available (e.g., “inspection orders”). As there is no general discovery, there is also no comprehensive system of privileges and protective orders as is well established in the Anglo-American realm. Both the lack of a discovery and of a general confidentiality system have, over the last two decades, been addressed in the German system by a number of statutory changes and case law. Different from a trial-court system, the court of first instance is not the only “court of record.” Rather – and mostly because the process is less time- and resource-consuming – the appellate level is typically also called upon to engage in further fact-finding within certain limits. Thus, there is no clear-cut distinction between trial and appellate levels along the lines of “fact-finding” and “issues of law.”