German Utility Models: The Fast, Cheap Weapon Chinese Companies Are Missing in Global Patent Wars
On September 18, the Munich Regional Court I (Landgericht München I) ruled in favor of Yangtze Memory Technologies against Micron, granting two injunctions in the first instance. When the news reached China, Chinese-language reports almost uniformly emphasized one point: these two rights are German utility models, which undergo no substantive examination, and Micron has already appealed, so they could be overturned at any time.
There is one detail that many reports missed.
As noted by the German patent media outlet JUVE, precisely because there is no substantive examination, the defendant can directly challenge validity during the hearing. The Munich Civil Division VII actually held nearly two days of hearings on these two rights, examining validity from scratch. After that review, the judges still found both rights valid and still issued the injunctions.
In other words, Micron mounted a real challenge in court and failed to bring it down. It had its chance to turn the case around, and it lost that round.
What I want to discuss today is exactly this: in global patent wars, don't just think about defense. Yangtze Memory's move used a cheap and fast blade—the German utility model.
Let's do the math first. The German utility model is a registration-based system with no substantive examination. Once it passes formal examination, the certificate issues, typically in 1 to 3 months, or as fast as about one month. The official fee is 30 EUR for an electronic filing; for a bit more certainty, you can pay 250 EUR for the German Patent and Trade Mark Office (DPMA) to issue a search report. By comparison, a European patent often takes years from filing to grant.
I know some people will scoff: what is something without substantive examination worth?
That is precisely the biggest misunderstanding. The inventive step standard for German utility models is the same as for invention patents for the same scope of prior art. It also has two advantages over invention patents: public use in the prior art only counts within Germany, and the applicant gets an additional 6-month grace period. Simply put, it is not a low-quality patent; it merely postpones the substantive examination procedure until the day of litigation.
The truly valuable and most easily overlooked thing is something called the separation procedure, Abzweigung in German, under Sec. 5(1) of the German Utility Model Act.
To be honest, the first time I saw the words "separation procedure," I didn't take them seriously either. Only later did I realize how useful it is.
Imagine this. You have a German invention, a European patent designating Germany, or a PCT application under examination. Halfway through, you discover someone is copying in the market. What do you do? Waiting for grant could take another year or two—too late.
The separation procedure allows you to carve out a utility model from that pending application, inheriting the original filing date and priority date. The window is 2 months from the end of the month in which the basic application ends or the opposition concludes, up to a maximum of 10 years from the filing date. Once you have it, you can immediately tailor the claims to the infringing product, obtain the right quickly, and sue.
While the patent is still pending, you can already draw a fast blade. The institutional premise for Yangtze Memory to obtain an injunction first in Germany lies here. In October 2025, it filed 5 cases in Munich at once—4 utility models plus 1 European patent—and the first two results were both utility models.
Let me put my position plainly here: the vast majority of Chinese companies going global have only the words "respond to litigation" in hand, not the option to "make a move." This is abnormal, and it can be changed.
Three key differences between Chinese and German utility models directly determine whether you can fight this way:
| Dimension | China | Germany |
|---|---|---|
| Can it coexist with an invention patent? | No, same-day filings require choosing one | Yes, two weapons for the same technology |
| Can it be separated from an invention? | No | Yes (separation procedure) |
| Subject matter | Limited to product shape or structure | Broader, including compounds, compositions, and even "use" claims |
Then there are 5 steps for going global, one at a time:
| Step | Action | Key |
|---|---|---|
| 1 Layout | Equip target markets with "fast enforceable rights": dual filing of invention + utility model, or separation from a pending application | Separation window is 2 months, up to 10 years from filing date |
| 2 Choose court | Germany as main market → German courts (first instance Munich, appeal Düsseldorf); broader focus → UPC | Major German courts 8-10 months, UPC oral hearing about 13 months |
| 3 Obtain injunction | First-instance infringement action can obtain an injunction; security bond allows enforcement first | Appeal court can order suspension of enforcement |
| 4 Prevent backlash | Self-assess validity before acting: 250 EUR search report or German lawyer's opinion | Losing party in invalidation bears the other side's costs |
| 5 Respond to countermeasures | Opponents often counter symmetrically: appeal + validity challenge, counterclaim, even trade secret litigation | Multiple jurisdictions in parallel, keep cross-licence chips |
Before you start writing, run through these three questions:
- For your most core, most easily copied structure, do you have a right in Germany that can be obtained "in a few weeks and can seek an injunction in court"? If not, you only have defensive capability in Germany.
- Can your pending German/European/PCT application undergo separation to tailor claims to a competitor's product?
- Before enforcing a right, can you produce a validity self-assessment? If you lose an invalidation, you pay the other side's attorney fees—have you calculated that bill?
There is one more thing that must be made clear. Getting an injunction does not mean the other party immediately cuts off supply. A first-instance judgment can be enforced first, but you must pay a security bond; if the appeal overturns it, you must compensate for losses caused by enforcement. Moreover, as of publication, public reports have not shown that the higher court has ruled on suspension of enforcement. Whether the injunction will actually take effect—no one can say for sure right now. German media put it bluntly: this injunction is more often a bargaining chip than a supply-cut order.
There is also a hard threshold not to miss: applicants without residence or place of business in Germany must be represented by a German patent attorney or German lawyer in proceedings before the DPMA and the Federal Patent Court. To make this game work on the ground, you still need someone who understands Germany.
As I write this, I keep confirming one phrase to myself: "no substantive examination" does not equal "cannot hold up." This phrase is valuable because Yangtze Memory's round relied on doing its validity homework solidly and withstanding in-court scrutiny—nothing to do with luck. Speed and stability can be prepared at the same time.
Welcome to follow the WeChat public account "Najie Mili" and discuss in the comments the global patent wars you have encountered. In the next article, I will break down the separation procedure: from a PCT application to a German utility model ready to sue, where each step hits a time limit.
He Zigang | Intellectual Property Lawyer | Aipunajie · Mili · Najie
This article represents the author's personal views only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific case analysis, please leave a comment.
This article represents only the author's personal views and does not constitute legal advice. For specific case analysis, welcome to contact us.