Zeinab Mustafa (Portrait)

Zeinab Mustafa


Immaterialgüter- und Wettbewerbsrecht



Patentrecht, internationales Immaterialgüterrecht, internationales und europäisches Recht, Kollisionsrecht und Zuständigkeit der Gerichte

Wissenschaftlicher Werdegang

Seit 2021
Doktorandin am Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb

2017 – 2018
Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC), München
Master of Laws im gewerblichen Rechtsschutz und Wettbewerbsrecht

2008 – 2012
Tishreen-Universität, Juristische Fakultät. Latakia, Syrien.
Bachelor of Law


2018 – 2021
Brandstock Services AG (A Questel Company), München

2015 – 2018
Syrische Anwaltskammer

2013 – 2015
Syrische Anwaltskammer

Ehrungen und wissenschaftliche Preise

Max-Planck-Institut für Innovation und Wettbewerb

2010 – 2011
Bassel-Alassad-Zertifikat für akademische Exzellenz
Tishreen-Universität, Syrien


Syrische Anwaltskammer, Rechtsanwältin


Monographien und andere selbständige Publikationen

Unjustified Patent Enforcement (MIPLC Master Thesis Series 2017/18) 2019, Master, MIPLC, 80 S.

  • This thesis analyses the legal consequences of subsequent patent invalidation
    on infringement actions, contracts and warning letters.
    Patent invalidation has a retroactive effect. The revoked patent should be
    treated as has never exist while it was used against third parties. There is a
    certain legal agreement that, if the patent is invalidated in the course of
    pending trial, the case is dismissed. However, the consequences of a patent
    invalidation on a final judgement differ among the surveyed jurisdictions.
    When the patent has been used as a legal instrument to negotiate a license or
    purchase a patent, in most cases, patent invalidation will not oblige the
    licensor to repay the licensing fees for the time when the patent was in force.
    However, does the licensor have the right to ask for post-invalidation
    royalties. Different jurisdictions give different answers.
    Moreover, the patentee has every right to give third parties notice of his
    exclusive right. This might be done by warning letters. Sending warning letter
    to a primary infringer may be a customary action before filing a law suit.
    However, a conflict arises when the patentee sends warning letters to
    secondary infringers. On the one hand, patent law does not distinguish
    between primary and secondary infringers. On the other hand, sending
    warning letter to secondary actors has less justification since secondary
    infringer will not will to start a legal proceeding against the patentee. They
    simply switch to alternatives. In such a case, the primary infringer’s
    reputation and business might be destroyed.
    After studying the legal solutions in the surveyed jurisdiction, I came to the
    opinion that: to a certain extent the alleged infringer should be able to claim
    back the damages he suffered due to an infringement action which was based
    on defective patent. In case of a contracts, the licensor should lose his right in
    claiming post-invalidation royalties. Warning letters against primary
    infringers should not be actionable, while a no-fault liability should apply when the unjustified warning was sent to secondary infringers, and a per-se prohibition rule should apply for warning the public at large.
  • Available at SSRN


Seit Winter 2019
MIPLC Basic and Elective Modules (Tutorin)
Universität Augsburg