GUILFORD, Maine, Dec. 7, 2020 /PRNewswire/ -- On November 12, 2020, the German Federal Patent Court released its last decision on costs of proceedings to be reimbursed by Copan Italia S.p.A. This is the end of the line for the long-lasting litigation proceedings in Germany.
Eight years ago, Copan started litigation in Germany against Puritan back by filing a request for inspection proceedings with the District Court Düsseldorf based on German Utility Model1 DE 20 2004 021 787 U1 (Court-ref.: 4b O 176/12). In 2013, Copan filed complaints for infringement of three German Utility Models: DE 20 2004 021 787 U1, DE 20 2004 021 930 U1 and DE 20 2004 021 932 U1 (Court refs.: 4b O 39/13, 4b O 58/13 and 4b O 59/13). These lawsuits accused Puritan's HydraFlock® and PurFlock Ultra® flocked swabs of infringing Copan's technology.
Puritan fought back. As an immediate countermeasure, Puritan filed for cancellation of all three German Utility Models at the German Patent and Trademark Office. As litigation progressed, Puritan kept winning and Copan kept losing. The German courts ruled that Copan's asserted claims were baseless. All three of Copan's German Utility Models, one after the other, turned out to be null and void for the entire term of protection. The last blow came when the German Federal Supreme Court affirmed the revocation of DE 20 2004 021 930 U1 in third instance (Court ref.: X ZB 21/16).
After eight years of litigation, Copan's three asserted German Utility Models have been declared null and void in their entirety. These decisions are now final. As a result, Puritan also defeated Copan in the corresponding infringement proceedings (Court refs.: 4b O 59/13, I-2 U 46/14, and I-2 U 48/14).
In Germany, the loser pays. So after wasting years trying to assert and revive three Utility Models, Copan must reimburse Puritan for the costs of each and every infringement and cancellation proceeding, according to German law.
Copan is 0-6 in Germany.
______________________________1 German Utility Models can provide rights similar to patent rights, except legal proceedings may begin before a patent office examiner ever looks at the substance of the Utility Model for validity. That is what happened here.
Virginia Templet, firstname.lastname@example.org