Die Wirkungserstreckung ausländischer Patente

Why do patents have only limited territorial effect? Can and should a foreign patent produce legal effects domestically? Michael Cremer examines various conflict-of-laws approaches that could facilitate cross-border patent protection.

Patent law is traditionally territorial in nature: patents provide protection only in the state that grants them and have no effect abroad. While this territoriality has deep historical roots, it sits uneasily with global markets and the worldwide disclosure of inventions. Michael Cremer takes this tension as a starting point to question the territorial conception of patent law. He explores whether, and to what extent, cross-border patent protection can and should be achieved by extending the effects of foreign patents into the domestic legal order.
Cremer first demonstrates that territoriality is an umbrella term for several distinct legal principles, most notably the geographically limited effect of patents and the prohibition of substitution. The fragmentation of patent protection, however, ultimately results from each state’s conflict-of-laws decision to deny foreign patents legal significance within its own legal system.
The author shows that the territorial limitation of patent law is primarily rooted in history. It emerged from the development of patent law out of early invention privileges and reflected the original purpose of patent protection: importing knowledge that was already known abroad into the domestic sphere. Subsequent developments in patent law had little impact on this territorial framework because of the field’s early internationalization through the Paris Convention of 1883.
From a contemporary perspective, there is no compelling reason for the territorial fragmentation of patent law. Extending the effects of patents through conflict-of-laws rules would allow states to cooperate more closely in promoting global innovation while still maintaining sufficient control over the influence of foreign law.
Finally, Michael Cremer turns to the practical implementation of such an extension of effects and examines four different conflict-of-laws approaches: applying foreign patent law, protecting foreign patents as acquired rights, recognizing foreign patent grants as administrative acts, and substituting domestic patents for foreign ones. He concludes that recognition is the preferable solution, as it enables nuanced outcomes while providing a high degree of legal certainty.

Einleitung
Teil 1 - Grundstrukturen des Patent- und Patentkollisionsrechts
§ 1 Funktionen und Grundzüge des materiellen Patentrechts
§ 2 Territoriale Begrenzung des Patentrechts
§ 3 Instrumente für transnationalen Patentschutz de lege lata
§ 4 Patentkollisionsrecht
§ 5 Territoriale Aufspaltung des Patentschutzes durch das Kollisionsrecht
Teil 2 - Historie und Legitimation der territorialen Struktur des Patentrechts
Abschnitt 1 - Historie der territorialen Struktur des Patentrechts
§ 6 Historische Entwicklung des (internationalen) Erfindungsschutzes bis zur Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft
§ 7 Versteinerung des internationalen Patentrechts durch die Pariser Verbandsübereinkunft
Abschnitt 2 - Heutige Rechtfertigung der territorialen Struktur des Patentrechts
§ 8 Vorgaben aus dem Völkerrecht
§ 9 Grundlegende Eigenschaften des Patentschutzes
§ 10 Rechtsdogmatische und rechtspolitische Rechtfertigung
Teil 3 - Wirkungserstreckung ausländischer Patente
§ 11 Grundlagen und Umsetzungsmethoden der Wirkungserstreckung
§ 12 Verweisung auf ausländisches Patentrecht
§ 13 Schutz ausländischer Patente als wohlerworbene Rechte
§ 14 Verwaltungsrechtliche Anerkennung ausländischer Patenterteilungen
§ 15 Substitution des inländischen Patents
§ 16 Bewertung der Wirkungserstreckung
Zusammenfassung der wesentlichen Ergebnisse

• By (author) Michael Cremer