German to English Law/Patents Law: Patents, Trademarks, Copyright Patent opposition

Not sure what happened. I submitted this question yesterday but it doesn't appear.
This is another phrase that seems to relate to a cite in text. The phrase in question appears in the last line. I have searched but only found it so far as it appears here in Google books.

The reason that some acronyms are explained and some not is that some have already been explained previously in the document. Thank you!!!

Soweit ersichtlich, hat die Rechtsprechung in der genannten Situation eine Verantwortlichkeit des im Ausland ansässigen Lieferant für die Verletzung inländischer Patentrechte nur dann angenommen, wenn er die patentgemäßen Vorrichtungen in Kenntnis des Bestimmungslandes (zT auch gefordert: in Kenntnis des Klagepatents) liefert und damit den inländischen Vertrieb bewusst und willentlich mitverursacht (vgl. BGH, GRUB 2002, 599 Rn. 1 -Funkuhr, BGHZ 204, 114 Rn. 32 = GRUR 2015, 467 - Audiosignalcodierung, unter Bestätigung von Senat, GRUR 2014, 59, juris-Rn. 69 - MP2-Geräte; OLG Düsseldorf, IPRspr 2011, Nr. 234, 606, juris-Rn. 65; OLG Düsseldorf, Urt v. 5.5.2011, I-2 U 9/10, BeckRS 2011, 20946, juris-Rn. 73; LG Düsseldorf , instGE 3, 174 [175] - Herzkranzgefäß-Dilatationskatheter; restriktiver LG Mannheim, GRUR-RR 2013,449 - Seitenaufprali- Schutzeinrichtung; weitergehend wohl Benkard/Scharen, § 9 Rn. 10).


To the extent obvious, the case law in the aforementioned situation has only assumed a responsibility on the part of the supplier located in a foreign country for the infringement of domestic patent laws when said supplier supplies the devices according to the patent with knowledge of the destination country (currently also required: knowledge of the disputed patent) and thus deliberately and willfully contributes to the cause of the domestic distribution (cf. BGH, GRUB 2002, 599 margin No. 1 – Radio-controlled clock, BGHZ 204, 114 margin No. 32 = GRUR 2015, 467 – Audio signal coding, upheld by the Chamber, GRUR 2014, 59, juris. margin No. 69 – MP2 devices; Düsseldorf OLG, IP Case Law 2011, No. 234, 606, juris. margin No. 65; Düsseldorf OLG , Urt v. 5.5.2011, I-2 U 9/10, Beck Case Law 2011, 20946, juris. margin No. 73; Düsseldorf LG, instGE 3, 174 [175] – Coronary artery dilatation catheter; restrictive Mannheim LG, GRUR-RR [German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property, Case Law Report] 2013, 449 – Side impact protection equipment; weitergehend wohl Benkard/Scharen, § 9 margin No. 10).