[co-author: Angelika Tafelmaier]
Consequences for the hotel industry
According to a recent judgement of the Regional Court of Munich, the circumstances of the specific individual case must still be taken into account when determining the amount of rent adjustment due to a severe change in the implicit basis of contract (Störung der Geschäftsgrundlage according to § 313 BGB) caused by accommodation bans for the containment of the COVID-19 pandemic.
On 25th of January 2021, the Regional Court of Munich ruled on an action for payment of rent that was brought forward by a landlord who leased a building for the operation of a hotel to the tenant. Although hotel bookings for commercial purposes were still permitted at the time, the tenant decided to close the hotel following a cost calculation and has subsequently not paid rent for the months of April, May and June 2020.
To embed, copy and paste the code into your website or blog:
With a decision of 19 January 2021, the Munich Regional Court (file number 21 O 16782/20) referred following question to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling:
Is it compatible with Article 9 (1) of Directive 2004/48/EC that in proceedings for provisional measures the Higher Regional Courts with jurisdiction of the last instance generally refuse to issue provisional measures due to the infringement of patents if the patent in suit has not survived first instance opposition or nullity proceedings?
The background to this is the current practice of the Higher Regional Courts of Düsseldorf, Mannheim and Munich: A sufficiently secured validity of the patent that is inter alia prerequisite for the finding of a ground for a preliminary injunction (that again is besides the claim for an injunction required for the granting of a preliminary injunction) could only be assumed – with a few exceptions – in case the patentability was
I. Introduction
On November 26, the Dusseldorf Regional Court handed down a long awaited decision in the so-called
automotive patent wars (case ID 4c O 17/19). The court referred heatedly debated questions in connection with the enforcement of standard essential patents (“SEPs”) to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”). The detailed set of questions addresses two main issues: 1. Whether the entity selling a device (here a car) that includes a component that implements the technology protected by the SEP would be in compliance with the FRAND procedure set out by the CJEU in
Huawei v. ZTE if it were to refer the SEP holder to the upstream component supplier rather than making a fair reasonable and non- discriminatory (“FRAND”) offer itself; and