Jun 19, 2020 13:38
3 yrs ago
27 viewers *
German term
treuwidriges Verschließen
German to English
Law/Patents
Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright
In a court judgment relating to patent infringement:
Die bloß objektive Eignung für die geschützte Verwendung kann für den Befund einer unmittelbaren Verletzung nicht ausreichen, denn die Verwendung für gemeinfreie Zwecke muss erlaubt bleiben. Hinzukommen muss vielmehr, dass sich der Hersteller/Vertreiber des angegriffenen Produkts Umstände zunutze macht, die – „in ähnlicher Weise wie eine aktive sinnfällige Herrichtung – dafür sorgen, dass es […] zu dem zweckgebundenen therapeutischen Gebrauch kommt“. Gefordert wird ein hinreichender, nicht bloß vereinzelter Verwendungsumfang entsprechend dem Schutzrecht und ein diesbezügliches „Wissen oder zumindest ein ***treuwidriges Verschließen*** vor der diesbezüglichen Kenntnisnahme“.
Die bloß objektive Eignung für die geschützte Verwendung kann für den Befund einer unmittelbaren Verletzung nicht ausreichen, denn die Verwendung für gemeinfreie Zwecke muss erlaubt bleiben. Hinzukommen muss vielmehr, dass sich der Hersteller/Vertreiber des angegriffenen Produkts Umstände zunutze macht, die – „in ähnlicher Weise wie eine aktive sinnfällige Herrichtung – dafür sorgen, dass es […] zu dem zweckgebundenen therapeutischen Gebrauch kommt“. Gefordert wird ein hinreichender, nicht bloß vereinzelter Verwendungsumfang entsprechend dem Schutzrecht und ein diesbezügliches „Wissen oder zumindest ein ***treuwidriges Verschließen*** vor der diesbezüglichen Kenntnisnahme“.
Proposed translations
(English)
3 | willful disregard | Klaus Beyer |
4 | an unconscionable /intentionally misfeasant/ closing of minds | Adrian MM. |
3 | willful ignorance | Michael Martin, MA |
References
A few references to this | Alison MacG |
Proposed translations
1 day 3 hrs
Selected
willful disregard
In accordance with patent law, a sufficient, more than random scope of usage is called for in addition to being fully cognizant thereof, not merely exhibiting willful disregard for the above-stated fact.
4 KudoZ points awarded for this answer.
Comment: "This seemed the best fit for my text. Thanks."
3 hrs
willful ignorance
Not an expert but that sounds like willful ignorance to me.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12490
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/phc3.12490
3 hrs
German term (edited):
ein treuwidriges Verschließen
an unconscionable /intentionally misfeasant/ closing of minds
The only issue here - for me - is whether such 'naughty closing of minds' amounts to mis- or malfeasance outside of public or corporate office, either term interpreted slightly differently Transatlantically.
Unconsconiable: uttered in a contract law lecture all of half-a-century ago by my first law lecturer: an Equity Barrister-cum-Chancery Practitioner.
Over to the experts....
Unconsconiable: uttered in a contract law lecture all of half-a-century ago by my first law lecturer: an Equity Barrister-cum-Chancery Practitioner.
Over to the experts....
Reference:
Reference comments
1 hr
Reference:
A few references to this
212 As Lord Sumption and Lord Briggs point out, the more recent German authorities, Östrogenblocker and Dexmedetomidin, take a broader view of the protection generated by a Swiss-form patent. They do not focus on the external presentation (including the instructions for its use) of the allegedly infringing product, but rather on its inherent suitability for the patented use. However, they underline an additional requirement of any infringement, viz that the distributor
“needs to take advantage of circumstances which - in a similar way to an active obvious preparation - ensure that the purpose-related therapeutic use of the preparation offered or sold actually takes place.”
and
“The latter requires a sufficient and not just occasional use according to the patent in suit, as well as the supplier’s respective knowledge, or at least its bad faith ignorance thereof:”
https://academic.oup.com/rpc/article/135/12/831/5540064
In a judgment of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeals dated 1 March 2018 (confirming an order of the Düsseldorf District Court dated 5 May 2017), the court increased the liability of generics companies in cases of infringement of second medical use claims. The court decided that:
taking into account the ... purpose-limited compound protection there must only be conditions fulfilled which ensure the requested purpose for the compound in another way: First, the product must be suitable for the patented purpose and, secondly, the supplier must make use of circumstances which – similar to an active purposeful arrangement by him – ensure that the purpose-limited therapeutic use will be reached by means of the offered and sold product. The latter requires an adequate not only occasional scope of use according to the patent in suit as well as a respective knowledge or at least an ignorance of knowledge in bad faith by the supplier.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nx20DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT125&dq...
In this context, the court formulated the following new liability criteria
1. The product must be suitable for the patented purpose
2. The distributor must take advantage of circumstances which, in a manner similar to an active manifest arrangement, ensure that the product being offered or marketed is used for the specified therapeutic purpose. This requires a sufficient and not only occasional use, as well as the relevant knowledge or at least disregard of such knowledge by the supplier acting in bad faith.
https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/14/6/487/5489982?gues...
“needs to take advantage of circumstances which - in a similar way to an active obvious preparation - ensure that the purpose-related therapeutic use of the preparation offered or sold actually takes place.”
and
“The latter requires a sufficient and not just occasional use according to the patent in suit, as well as the supplier’s respective knowledge, or at least its bad faith ignorance thereof:”
https://academic.oup.com/rpc/article/135/12/831/5540064
In a judgment of the Düsseldorf Court of Appeals dated 1 March 2018 (confirming an order of the Düsseldorf District Court dated 5 May 2017), the court increased the liability of generics companies in cases of infringement of second medical use claims. The court decided that:
taking into account the ... purpose-limited compound protection there must only be conditions fulfilled which ensure the requested purpose for the compound in another way: First, the product must be suitable for the patented purpose and, secondly, the supplier must make use of circumstances which – similar to an active purposeful arrangement by him – ensure that the purpose-limited therapeutic use will be reached by means of the offered and sold product. The latter requires an adequate not only occasional scope of use according to the patent in suit as well as a respective knowledge or at least an ignorance of knowledge in bad faith by the supplier.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=nx20DwAAQBAJ&pg=PT125&dq...
In this context, the court formulated the following new liability criteria
1. The product must be suitable for the patented purpose
2. The distributor must take advantage of circumstances which, in a manner similar to an active manifest arrangement, ensure that the product being offered or marketed is used for the specified therapeutic purpose. This requires a sufficient and not only occasional use, as well as the relevant knowledge or at least disregard of such knowledge by the supplier acting in bad faith.
https://academic.oup.com/jiplp/article/14/6/487/5489982?gues...
Peer comments on this reference comment:
agree |
Björn Vrooman
: Hope you're well, Alison. I like your first link in particular. Cf d-box. // No worries. FYI: The same has happened to me as well, several times. Either I get it late or not at all.
53 mins
|
I'm OK, thanks, and hope you are too. (I would have replied sooner, but I'm no longer receiving all my ProZ notifications for some reason and will have to contact support)
|
Discussion
Also like "willful," as in "willful infringement." Cf Maureen's similarly structured answer: https://www.proz.com/kudoz/german-to-english/law-general/783...
Here's some related info:
https://www.natlawreview.com/article/restoration-bad-faith-p...
http://patentblog.kluweriplaw.com/2018/05/22/know-patent-lac...
https://www.managingip.com/article/b1kbm0214n1xm2/the-many-f...
In your context, you could keep it simpler, though, and use a verb, e.g., "TT has proven that the eSpeed sold their infringing software despite of the fact that there
was an objectively high likelihood that its actions constituted infringement of the patents-in-suit and that eSpeed knew or at least should have known of this risk."
https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCOURTS-ilnd-1_04-cv-05...
Best