Applying Art 142(1) EPC (not Art 149a(1)(a) EPC) the CMSs have harmonized the law on indirect infringement applied by the UPC and during the transitional period also by the national courts (Introduction to UPCA, mn 98 ff). Before the creation of Art 26 CPC, on which—albeit in significantly modified form—Art 26 UPCA is based, the legal situation in Germany was heterogeneous. In Germany, the case law of the Reichsgericht had developed a separate legal institution of indirect patent infringement based on general tort law. Objectively, a means was required to achieve the particular purpose of an individual invention. In a subjective respect, negligence on the part of the supplier was required (imputed knowledge (Kennenmüssen) of the intention to use the means for putting the invention into effect), which, however, was not compatible with the requirements of general tort law (intentional participation in an intentional deed). In other European countries a similar case law also developed, in some instances at an objective level (Denmark), and in some instances with subjective requirements (Netherlands: knowledge).