ACT_23636/2024

For a product composition claim, it is sufficient to allege and prove the composition had all features of the claim; applicant need not explain why the composition had those features

Note: The Munich Local Division held that the burden of pleading and proof for a product composition claim requires only demonstrating the composition's features, not explaining the mechanism or reason those features are present.

Distributing infringing composition outside contracting states while advertising under the same name within contracting states creates risk of first infringement within contracting states

Note: The court found that cross-border distribution and advertising under the same product name creates a legally cognisable risk of first infringement in contracting states where the patent is valid.

Cease-and-desist declaration without penalty clause is insufficient to eliminate risk of first infringement; actus contrarius not sufficient

Note: The court held that only a cease-and-desist declaration with a penalty clause adequately eliminates risk of first infringement; an actus contrarius alone is insufficient.

Temporal urgency of two months applies (Munich Local Division practice)

Note: The Munich Local Division adhered to its two-month urgency window, diverging from the Düsseldorf Local Division's one-month approach, citing diverging case law.

Application for seizure of goods should be maintained in full

Reason: The applicant partially withdrew the seizure application; the remaining injunction application was successful.