fbpx

With Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser and Dr. Christian Gärtner, two very experienced colleagues from the Prüfer und Partner team are joining the management.

Jürgen Feldmeier, managing partner:
“With Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser, whom we have known for 16 years as an extremely competent and determined patent attorney and proven life science expert, and with Dr. Christian Gärtner, who started and successfully completed his training as a patent attorney in our firm 10 years ago and is now extremely experienced in bilateral proceedings, we have gained two partners who carry the Prüfer DNA. Today and in the future, they will work conscientiously and ambitiously to meet the needs of our clients.”

We look forward to a successful and inspiring future.

Further news

52 years of consistency and still fit for the future – Prüfer und Partner welcomes the next generation of partners

With Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser and Dr. Christian Gärtner, two very experienced colleagues from the Prüfer und Partner team are joining the management.
阅读文章

Recent earthquake in Japan

We were deeply shocked to learn of the devastating earthquake in Japan and would like to express our sincere condolences to the victims of this earthquake. In these difficult times, we would like to express our deepest sympathy to you and your fellow human beings.
阅读文章

Abolition of the 10-day notification fiction at the European Patent Office

In view of the digital age, in which documents will only be served electronically in the future, the European Patent Office will abolish its so-called 10-day fiction of service, which previously governed the calculation of time limits, as of November 1, 2023.
阅读文章

Prüfer普律丰事务所鉴于在专利申请和专利无效领域的优异表现上榜IAM Patent 1000 2023国际排名

我们很高兴地与您分享,在最新公布的2023年版IAM Patent 1000(世界领先的专利服务提供商排名之一)中,我所Prüfer & Partner普律丰和我们的四位知识产权律师因其在专利申请和无效方面的杰出工作而金榜题名。
阅读文章

Prüfer律师列选为Handelsblatt2023年年度最佳律师

我们非常高兴地看到,我们的专利律师Dorothea Hofer博士、Jürgen Feldmeier先生以及Andreas Oser博士在2023年6月16日Handelsblatt公布的排名beste Anwälte des Jahres 2023中被列为2023年的年度最佳律师。
阅读文章

PRÜFER & PARTNER is ranked again in “The Legal 500 – Germany 2023”

Prüfer & Partner mbB Patent- und Rechtsanwälte is again recognised for its outstanding performance in the current ranking of “The Legal 500 – Germany”. The firm is recommended in the areas of “Patent Law: Patent Attorneys: Patent Prosecution” and “Patent Law: Patent Attorneys: Litigation” and is thus listed among the best IP law firms in Germany.
阅读文章

Plausibility – an unsolved problem in patent granting

The decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (GBK) of the European Patent Office (EPO) in the currently pending proceedings G2/21 is awaited with great excitement. This could have a significant impact on the future filing strategy of applicants, because at its core is the question of when an invention is “ready” to file.
阅读文章

The European patent grows to 39 contracting states with the accession of Montenegro

On July 15, 2022, Montenegro completed the final step towards accession to the European Patent Convention (EPC) by depositing its instrument of accession and became the 39th member state of the European Patent Organization (EPO) on October 1, 2022.
阅读文章

Amendments of regulations before the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA)

In the months of May and July 2022, some amendments relevant for practice before the DPMA will enter into force. The most important ones in brief are listed here.
阅读文章

Newly published Legal 500 Germany Ranking 2022

Prüfer & Partner has again been awarded by the renowned professional publisher Legal500 in the field of Intellectual Property Law, both in the category “Prosecution” and in “Litigation”!
阅读文章

We were deeply shocked to learn of the devastating earthquake in Japan and would like to express our sincere condolences to the victims of this earthquake. In these difficult times, we would like to express our deepest sympathy to you and your fellow human beings.

Our thoughts are with all those affected, their families and friends. May the strength of the community and the support of those around you give you comfort during this difficult time.

Dr. Dorothea Hofer
Jürgen Feldmeier
Dr. Andreas Oser

Weitere News

52 years of consistency and still fit for the future – Prüfer und Partner welcomes the next generation of partners

With Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser and Dr. Christian Gärtner, two very experienced colleagues from the Prüfer und Partner team are joining the management.
阅读文章

Recent earthquake in Japan

We were deeply shocked to learn of the devastating earthquake in Japan and would like to express our sincere condolences to the victims of this earthquake. In these difficult times, we would like to express our deepest sympathy to you and your fellow human beings.
阅读文章

Abolition of the 10-day notification fiction at the European Patent Office

In view of the digital age, in which documents will only be served electronically in the future, the European Patent Office will abolish its so-called 10-day fiction of service, which previously governed the calculation of time limits, as of November 1, 2023.
阅读文章

Prüfer普律丰事务所鉴于在专利申请和专利无效领域的优异表现上榜IAM Patent 1000 2023国际排名

我们很高兴地与您分享,在最新公布的2023年版IAM Patent 1000(世界领先的专利服务提供商排名之一)中,我所Prüfer & Partner普律丰和我们的四位知识产权律师因其在专利申请和无效方面的杰出工作而金榜题名。
阅读文章

Prüfer律师列选为Handelsblatt2023年年度最佳律师

我们非常高兴地看到,我们的专利律师Dorothea Hofer博士、Jürgen Feldmeier先生以及Andreas Oser博士在2023年6月16日Handelsblatt公布的排名beste Anwälte des Jahres 2023中被列为2023年的年度最佳律师。
阅读文章

PRÜFER & PARTNER is ranked again in “The Legal 500 – Germany 2023”

Prüfer & Partner mbB Patent- und Rechtsanwälte is again recognised for its outstanding performance in the current ranking of “The Legal 500 – Germany”. The firm is recommended in the areas of “Patent Law: Patent Attorneys: Patent Prosecution” and “Patent Law: Patent Attorneys: Litigation” and is thus listed among the best IP law firms in Germany.
阅读文章

Plausibility – an unsolved problem in patent granting

The decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (GBK) of the European Patent Office (EPO) in the currently pending proceedings G2/21 is awaited with great excitement. This could have a significant impact on the future filing strategy of applicants, because at its core is the question of when an invention is “ready” to file.
阅读文章

The European patent grows to 39 contracting states with the accession of Montenegro

On July 15, 2022, Montenegro completed the final step towards accession to the European Patent Convention (EPC) by depositing its instrument of accession and became the 39th member state of the European Patent Organization (EPO) on October 1, 2022.
阅读文章

Amendments of regulations before the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA)

In the months of May and July 2022, some amendments relevant for practice before the DPMA will enter into force. The most important ones in brief are listed here.
阅读文章

Newly published Legal 500 Germany Ranking 2022

Prüfer & Partner has again been awarded by the renowned professional publisher Legal500 in the field of Intellectual Property Law, both in the category “Prosecution” and in “Litigation”!
阅读文章

Dear Sir or Madam,

In view of the digital age, in which documents will only be served electronically in the future, the European Patent Office will abolish its so-called 10-day fiction of service, which previously governed the calculation of time limits, as of November 1, 2023.

With amended Rules 126(2) and 127(2) EPC, the current fiction of service, according to which a document is deemed to have been served on the tenth day after delivery to the postal service provider or – in the case of electronic service – on the tenth day after its transmission (“ten-day rule”), will no longer apply as of November 1, 2023. Instead, a new fiction of service will be introduced, according to which electronic (but also any postal) service will be deemed to have taken place on the date as shown of the document.

The amended service fiction is expected to lead to a simplification for users because it will bring the service rules of the EPC and the PCT more in line with each other.

Do you have any further questions on this topic?

Please contact us, we will be pleased to advise you!

Jürgen Feldmeier, LL.M

Other UPC-Updates

52 years of consistency and still fit for the future – Prüfer und Partner welcomes the next generation of partners

With Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser and Dr. Christian Gärtner, two very experienced colleagues from the Prüfer und Partner team are joining the management.
阅读文章

Recent earthquake in Japan

We were deeply shocked to learn of the devastating earthquake in Japan and would like to express our sincere condolences to the victims of this earthquake. In these difficult times, we would like to express our deepest sympathy to you and your fellow human beings.
阅读文章

Abolition of the 10-day notification fiction at the European Patent Office

In view of the digital age, in which documents will only be served electronically in the future, the European Patent Office will abolish its so-called 10-day fiction of service, which previously governed the calculation of time limits, as of November 1, 2023.
阅读文章

Prüfer普律丰事务所鉴于在专利申请和专利无效领域的优异表现上榜IAM Patent 1000 2023国际排名

我们很高兴地与您分享,在最新公布的2023年版IAM Patent 1000(世界领先的专利服务提供商排名之一)中,我所Prüfer & Partner普律丰和我们的四位知识产权律师因其在专利申请和无效方面的杰出工作而金榜题名。
阅读文章

Prüfer律师列选为Handelsblatt2023年年度最佳律师

我们非常高兴地看到,我们的专利律师Dorothea Hofer博士、Jürgen Feldmeier先生以及Andreas Oser博士在2023年6月16日Handelsblatt公布的排名beste Anwälte des Jahres 2023中被列为2023年的年度最佳律师。
阅读文章

PRÜFER & PARTNER is ranked again in “The Legal 500 – Germany 2023”

Prüfer & Partner mbB Patent- und Rechtsanwälte is again recognised for its outstanding performance in the current ranking of “The Legal 500 – Germany”. The firm is recommended in the areas of “Patent Law: Patent Attorneys: Patent Prosecution” and “Patent Law: Patent Attorneys: Litigation” and is thus listed among the best IP law firms in Germany.
阅读文章

Plausibility – an unsolved problem in patent granting

The decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (GBK) of the European Patent Office (EPO) in the currently pending proceedings G2/21 is awaited with great excitement. This could have a significant impact on the future filing strategy of applicants, because at its core is the question of when an invention is “ready” to file.
阅读文章

The European patent grows to 39 contracting states with the accession of Montenegro

On July 15, 2022, Montenegro completed the final step towards accession to the European Patent Convention (EPC) by depositing its instrument of accession and became the 39th member state of the European Patent Organization (EPO) on October 1, 2022.
阅读文章

Amendments of regulations before the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA)

In the months of May and July 2022, some amendments relevant for practice before the DPMA will enter into force. The most important ones in brief are listed here.
阅读文章

Newly published Legal 500 Germany Ranking 2022

Prüfer & Partner has again been awarded by the renowned professional publisher Legal500 in the field of Intellectual Property Law, both in the category “Prosecution” and in “Litigation”!
阅读文章

我们很高兴地与您分享,在最新公布的2023年版IAM Patent 1000(世界领先的专利服务提供商排名之一)中,我所Prüfer & Partner普律丰和我们的四位知识产权律师因其在专利申请和无效方面的杰出工作而金榜题名。

排名说明
Prüfer & Partner普律丰律师事务所
“Prüfer & Partner的律师在同行中脱颖而出,因为他们对客户的立场考虑周全。他们总是积极响应,并提供详细而务实的解决方案。他们的服务非常令人满意,我们强烈推荐整个团队”。

Jürgen Feldmeier
“Jürgen Feldmeier是一名在高科技工程领域经验丰富的专利律师,他提供的明确建议备受好评。他能轻松处理欧洲专利局的程序和无效诉讼–通常都能取得成功的结果。与他合作非常愉快,而且他对技术有很强的理解能力”。

Dorothea Hofer博士
“Dorothea Hofer博士非常出色。她提供了优质的服务,反应迅速而恰当,并且对复杂的技术问题有很强的理解能力。她对员工的选择得当,组成了一个能够处理诉讼等重要案件的坚实团队。她的工作质量和性价比绝对令人满意。Dorothea Hofer和她的事务所是德国最值得推荐的专利专家之一”。

Andreas Oser博士
“Andreas Oser博士在欧洲专利局的专利授权程序、异议程序以及技术意见方面都是值得推荐的。他非常可靠,并在该领域拥有丰富的经验。他以客户为导向,和他工作合作总是非常好的经历”。

Markus Adamczyk
Markus Adamczyk与上述律师一起入选今年的IAM专利1000强,他是人工智能和计算机实施发明领域公认的专家。凭借其在计算机科学、机械工程方面的知识以及在Vodafone公司的内部研究经验,Adamczyk的技术专长毋庸置疑。他为是Feldmeier的团队里的强力队员,为打印机行业的领军公司(Brother Industries)和特种机械设备制造商海门有限公司(Hymmen GmbH)提供服务。

关于IAM patent 1000强
久负盛名的IAM Patent 1000强排名由伦敦的Globe Business Media Group发布,被广泛认为是寻求世界级专利专业技术和领先专利服务提供商的权威来源。IAM开展了一项广泛的定性研究项目,以确定各个业务领域的优秀事务所和个人。

我们非常高兴地看到,我们的专利律师Dorothea Hofer博士、Jürgen Feldmeier先生以及Andreas Oser博士在2023年6月16日Handelsblatt公布的排名beste Anwälte des Jahres 2023中被列为2023年的年度最佳律师。

我们的三位专家被列入这一著名的排名,对我们的律师事务所来说是一个巨大的荣誉。我们也非常感谢我们的同事,感谢他们的多次推荐和良好的合作!

我们期待着继续在所有的知识产权事务中为我们的客户提供最好的支持,并保护他们的权利。

关于Handelsblatt的最佳律师排名
著名的商业杂志《Handelsblatt》与美国出版社《Best Lawyers(最佳律师)》合作,确定了著名的2023年德国年度最佳律师和商业律师事务所的排名。Handelsblatt目前的版本是基于第15版《最佳律师》的评级。

在该评级程序中,律师们被问及他们可以特别推荐哪些竞争对手。该评选程序遵循的信念是,律师本身最能判断哪些同事在某些法律领域特别有资格。除了他们自己,律师可以由任何人提名。

Prüfer & Partner mbB Patent- und Rechtsanwälte is again recognised for its outstanding performance in the current ranking of “The Legal 500 – Germany”. The firm is recommended in the areas of “Patent Law: Patent Attorneys: Patent Prosecution” and “Patent Law: Patent Attorneys: Litigation” and is thus listed among the best IP law firms in Germany.

Recommended IP law firm

According to Legal 500, PRÜFER & PARTNER has made a name for itself through its many years of experience in handling patents that are to be filed after grant by the DPMA or EPO, in particular also in the USA. In addition to an extensive German practice, PRÜFER & PARTNER also handles a broad range of international mandates and is well-equipped for mandates relating to Japan, China and Korea, in particular, thanks to a combination of established partner firms in Asia and in-house patent specialists including native speakers.

The firm has also been able to expand its domestic business through new direct mandates, including advice on strategic issues. It is familiar with drafting patent and utility model applications in a wide range of technologies. Managing partners Dorothea Hofer, Jürgen Feldmeier and Andreas Oser deserve special praise.

Testimonials

‘Very competent international coverage.’

‘Friendly, competent and very reliable.’

‘Systematic work, level of knowledge about files in the entire team, competence in all (for us) required areas.’

The cooperation is very pleasant and the partners involved are characterized in particular by a collegial cooperation. I would like to single out Jürgen Feldmeier.

‘Very courteous, patient – even if you’re not an IP expert, honest advice: what makes sense is suggested, what doesn’t make sense is pushed aside. Competence is definitely present in all people in their areas.’

‘The overall level of their services is excellent. Their response is always very quick and appropriate, and their ability to understand and analyze legal and technical issues is high.’

Dorothea Hofer, Jürgen Feldmeier, Andreas Oser are particularly good. They have a strong ability to understand complicated technical issues, give appropriate advice and deal with urgent matters.’

Mr. Feldmeier selects his staff properly to form a strong team capable of handling important cases such as litigation. Our Japanese clients are completely satisfied with the quality and cost-effectiveness of the work done by the team.

About Legal 500

Legal 500 researches and evaluates law firms in over 150 jurisdictions worldwide. The rankings, published annually, are based on the assessment of 300,000 clients, law firm submissions, interviews with leading lawyers and experts with extensive knowledge of the legal market.

Please find the current ranking here.

This article was originally published in German on JUVE Handbuch Wirtschaftskanzleien 2022/2023.

The decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal (GBK) of the European Patent Office (EPO) in the currently pending proceedings G2/21 is awaited with great excitement. This could have a significant impact on the future filing strategy of applicants, because at its core is the question of when an invention is “ready” to file.

Securing an early filing date for an invention is an important aspect of a patent strategy in order to secure one’s own legal position vis-à-vis competitors. For time and cost reasons, the question arises as to how much experimental effort must be expended under patent law aspects before filing a patent application in order to support the claimed effects, or whether corresponding evidence can be submitted subsequently.

Until a decision G2/21 is issued to finally clarify relevant submission questions, this article will discuss practical scenarios that will continue to exist regardless of the answer to the referred questions, but will have to be – possibly re – evaluated with the help of decision G2/21.

Suitability of “evidence” from product development as support of an invention

In the context of a product development, the product of a competitor or the internal ‘gold standard’ is often used as a reference product, regardless of whether the structure or composition of this reference product is known precisely. Such comparative data are often not usable in the context of the ‘problem-solution approach’ applied by the EPO, since, according to established case law, the claimed effect must be clearly attributable to the distinguishing characteristic.

Experimentally investigating the influence of all potentially relevant parameters on the claimed effect and thus exploring the limits of the invention can be time-consuming and financially expensive and usually does not appear to be expedient from the inventor’s point of view.

Irrespective of this, the proof of technical effects can often only be produced with pinpoint accuracy in the knowledge of the objectively closest prior art, e.g. in the examination procedure, since only then will the objectively fitting (because closest to the claimed invention) comparative form be known.

For such reasons, experimental investigations are often postponed to a later point in time. Whether this postponement is possible at all, however, is now to be clarified by the GBK.

Underlying question of G2/21

According to the questions referred, the GBK is primarily concerned with the question of whether evidence such as experimental data must be disregarded only after the patent application has been filed if it constitutes the exclusive evidence for a claimed effect. Three approaches are presented to the GBK, all of which revolve around the criterion of whether or to what extent the information originally provided in the application must render a claimed effect plausible:

The most generous scenario for the applicant would be if the exclusive evidence for a claimed effect could readily be provided after the filing date, i.e., no plausibility requirement at all. This would allow filing an invention in an early, possibly speculative (“immature”) state to secure an early filing date.

However, should the GKB come to the conclusion that minimum plausibility requirements are to be set with regard to the claimed effects in the application itself, a corresponding “ab-initio plausibility” could be applied as a standard for the technical effects.

In a third case, it could be required as a minimum that the claimed effects are at least not implausible from the outset, i.e. that there is no “ab-initio implausibility“.

State of maturity – when is an invention ready to be submitted

Regardless of how the GBK will decide, we always consider it useful to file an application only when advantages over the prior art can at least be named; proof of the technical effects, e.g. by comparative experiments, should be checked before filing.

The “state of maturity” of an invention could be classified as follows:

(i) effects are not (yet) known, only the features characterizing the desired product can be stated.

In this case, if an early filing date is a priority, one could include a “laundry list” of potential effects in the application text, and then pick the desired effect if needed. Although a lack of disclosure does not arise directly from the failure to obtain effects from the application as long as they are not reflected in the claim wording, an entirely speculative invention description could, in some circumstances, call into question the consideration of late evidence or even reworkability.

(ii) Effects are expected and the features of the invention that are causally responsible are suspected.

Here, the expected effects can already be specifically named; these should then at least not be “ab-initio implausible”. From a technical point of view, no doubts should be justified against the possible achievement of the named effects. In the description of the invention in the original application, the challenge is that it is not known which features/parameters are causal for the achievement of the effect. Regardless of decision G2/21, if possible, the “causality” between effects and the corresponding features of the invention should be investigated and explained in the application text. Previously published literature can help to substantiate this causal relationship. Patent law only requires that something works or that a set task is solved; a scientific explanation of how a claimed problem solution works is not necessarily required.

(iii) Effects are expected, it can be concluded on the basis of technical considerations which features of the invention should be causally responsible for them.

A technical explanation that the claimed effects are expected can be given in the patent application (“ab-initio plausibility”). However, a real experimental proof is still missing. In such a case, the prospects of grant – assuming the required novelty – are likely to be good, but it is to be expected that e.g. in possible opposition proceedings the opposing party could attack this “plausibility”, e.g. by submitting reasonable doubts that the theory underlying the plausibility is not correct. Without wanting to anticipate the final decision in the current referral G2/21, however, it should be possible in these case constellations on the basis of the existing “ab initio plausibility” to substantiate the expected technical effects in the factual instance – i.e. not only in appeal or appeal – by means of subsequently supplied experiments and data.

(iv) Effects are known and proven

Here, there should be nothing to argue against filing a patent application. If new prior art is invoked, e.g. in the examination procedure, it should be possible to provide further (post-published) experimental data to support the effects already shown in the application, if required.

Special cases

Special cases exist if technical effects are only proven or expected for a part of a claimed subject-matter, or if a technical effect itself constitutes a claimed feature – e.g. in a use claim. In the first case, the question then arises whether the technical effect can plausibly be generalized to the remaining part of the claim, and in the second case the criterion of “plausibility” will also be relevant in the context of examining whether the invention is sufficiently disclosed at all and thus practicable. Here, too, however, considerations similar to those explained earlier should play a role.

Conclusion

• The decision of the GBK in the proceedings G2/21 will hopefully provide clarity as to the “state of maturity” in which an invention must be filed in order for claimed effects to be recognized.
• In many cases, regardless of the standard to be applied under G2/21, early submission will be desired.
• It is already apparent that the question of “plausibility” does not constitute a patenting requirement in its own right, but is an important criterion in the examination for inventive step and possibly even the practicability of a claimed invention.
• In any case, it is wise to check the maturity of the invention before filing a patent application in order to achieve the best possible result and obtain a strong patent.

Authors:

Dr. Susanne Sonnenhauser
Ms. Sonnenhauser has been working in the field of intellectual property since 2005 and is admitted as a German Patent Attorney and European Patent Attorney. She joined Prüfer & Partner in 2008.

Her main practice areas are patent and trademark law, mainly in the fields of pharmaceuticals and life science.
Ms. Sonnenhauser represents her clients in both patent grant and opposition proceedings. In addition, she provides expert opinions regarding the validity and infringement of intellectual property rights.

Dr. Andreas Oser, LL.M.
Andreas Oser (Dipl.-Chem. University of Freiburg; Ph.D. Max-Planck-Institute for Biochemistry Munich) has been working in the field of intellectual property since 1991, was admitted as a German and European patent attorney in 1995 and has been a managing partner at Prüfer & Partner since 2002.

Mr. Oser’s main areas of expertise are chemistry, pharmaceuticals and life science.

His practice includes patent prosecution (drafting, examination), opposition and appeal proceedings, patent litigation, infringement and validity opinions, freedom-to-operate analyses and due diligence examinations.

Contact:
Prüfer & Partner mbB
Sohnckestrasse 12, 81479 München
Tel. +49 89 69 39 21 0, E-Mail office@pruefer.eu, www.pruefer.eu

On July 15, 2022, Montenegro completed the final step towards accession to the European Patent Convention (EPC) by depositing its instrument of accession and became the 39th member state of the European Patent Organization (EPO) on October 1, 2022.

This means that Montenegro is leaving its status as an extension state, which it obtained in 2010, and all patent applications filed on or after October 1, 2022, can be validated as a European patent with effect for Montenegro once they have been granted.

The official admission of Montenegro as a member state is a new milestone in the history of the European Patent Organization.

For more information: https://www.epo.org/news-events/news/2022/20221001.html

In the months of May and July 2022, some amendments relevant for practice before the DPMA will enter into force. The most important ones in brief:

(1) Increase of renewal fees for German patents (entry into force: 1 July 2022).
The patent fees for annual renewals will be moderately increased with due dates from July 2022, concerning payments from the 5th renewal fee. The following list shows the old (left column) and the new (right column in brackets) fees in EURO:

Annual fees:

  • for the 3rd year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
  • for the 4th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
  • for the 5th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90 (100)
  • for the 6th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130 (150
  • for the 7th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 (210)
  • for the 8th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 240 (280)
  • for the 9th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 290 (350)
  • for the 10th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350 (430)
  • for the 11th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 470 (540)
  • for the 12th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 620 (680)
  • for the 13th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 760 (830)
  • for the 14th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 910 (980)
  • for the 15th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,060 (1,130)
  • for the 16th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,230 (1,310)
  • for the 17th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,410 (1,490)
  • for the 18th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,590 (1,670)
  • for the 19th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,760 (1,840)
  • for the 20th year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1,940 (2,030)

Surcharge for late payment of the annual fee . . 50

(2) Extension of the time limit for entering the German national phase in PCT applications (entry into force: 1 May 2022)
The time limit for entering the German national phase in PCT applications is extended from 30 to 31 months from the filing or priority date. This gives more time to pay the fee for the initiation of the national phase at the DPMA and, if necessary, to submit the translation of the application in German. This is now also a welcome harmonisation with the corresponding 31-month time limit for the entering the regional phase before the European Patent Office (EPO).

(3) Conduct of hearings and oral proceedings by video (entry into force: 1 May 2022)
In patent, utility model, trade mark and design procedures before the DPMA, the possibility to participate in hearings and oral proceedings by video transmission will be opened. However, the possibility to participate in on-site personal hearings instead will continue to exist

If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact our team. Dr Andreas Oser, LL.M. (office@pruefer.eu)

Prüfer & Partner has again been awarded by the renowned professional publisher Legal500 in the field of Intellectual Property Law, both in the category “Prosecution” and in “Litigation”! We are very pleased about this further award for our work and would like to sincerely thank all our clients, foreign colleagues as well as employees for the trust they have placed in us and the good cooperation.

The link to the detailed ranking result on LEGAL500 can be found here.

Referenzen

“Prüfer & Partner are a strong team, which is particularly effective in the interaction between back office (very strong and extremely friendly!), drafting of applications/prosecution and legal advice in the conflict/licensing environment.”

“Dorothea Hofer: Excellent, conscientious and comprehensive advice in the conflict/licensing environment, very pragmatic and savvy and exceptionally helpful.”

“Very high level of expertise.”

“Dorothea Hofer, Jürgen Feldmeier and Andreas Oser. They are very good at understanding complex technical issues, give appropriate advice, and handle urgent matters expeditiously. Mr. Feldmeier selects his associates very well in order to be able to handle important mandates well, especially litigation.”

“Dorothea Hofer and Jürgen Feldmeier are IP veterans, which is apparent in their practical advice and background knowledge of procedures and possible outcomes of office actions or conflicts. I find them very strong and attentive, especially with clients from Asia who feel safe with them. Perfect English and cultural sensitivity help them.”

The Legal 500 is a renowned research agency that specializes in law firm recommendations. As part of its research, the independent team of experienced editors conducts hundreds of interviews with attorneys and consults more than 23,000 clients each year, allowing for a comprehensive and thorough evaluation of law firms in a wide range of practice areas.