Zeinab MustafaDoctoral Student
Intellectual Property and Competition Law
Areas of Interest:
Patent Law, International IIP, International and European Law, Conflict of Law and Jurisdiction of Courts
Doctoral Student at the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
2017 - 2018
Munich Intellectual Property Law Center (MIPLC), Munich
Master of Laws in Intellectual Property and Competition Law
2008 - 2012
Tishreen University, Faculty of Law. Latakia, Syria.
Bachelor of Law
2018 - 2021
Brandstock Services AG (A Questel Company), Munich
2015 - 2018
Attorney at Law
Syrian Bar Association
2013 - 2015
Syrian Bar Association
Academic Prizes and Honours
Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition
2010 - 2011
Bassel Alassad Certificate for Academic Excellence
Tishreen University, Syria
Syrian Bar Association, Lawyer
Books and Monographs
Unjustified Patent Enforcement (MIPLC Master Thesis Series 2017/18) 2019,
- 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
Since Winter 2019
MIPLC Basic and Elective Modules (Tutor)
University of Augsburg