JUVE Comment

This pure patent attorney firm from Stuttgart remains excellently positioned in litigation for German SMEs. The traditional patent attorney firm has extensive experience in litigation across a broad technical spectrum, especially nullity actions and EPO oppositions related to mechanical engineering, mechanics and electronics.

Due to their strong roots in the technology-driven SME sector, the patent attorneys provide comprehensive support to their regular clients, such as automotive supplier BPW Bergische Achse and medical device manufacturer Paul Hartman, including in infringement proceedings against competitors or imitators. In such cases, it usually works closely with a few law firms such as Hoyng ROKH Monegier (for Philip Morris) or McDermott (for Paul Hartman). Oppositions before the DPMA or EPO are often the starting point for the firm’s involvement. Unlike Cohausz & Florak or Maikowski & Ninnemann, for example, Dreiss has so far hardly been involved in major battles over mobile communications or pharmaceuticals due to its client structure.

Work for German SMEs in China is another mainstay of the practice. Dreiss coordinates proceedings before the Chinese courts for companies such as Swiss auto supplier Kinetix. It has also recently expanded its prosecution work for Chinese clients such as Deepal Automobile Technology and Softbank from Japan. Such client relationships in Asia promise long-term potential, particularly in terms of more cases before the UPC.

European set-up

Thanks to its size, technological breadth and extensive litigation experience, Dreiss is frequently present in German proceedings in pan-European patent disputes. This was the case for Philip Morris in an intensive battle over e-cigarette technology, which continues in EPO proceedings. The dispute over brake technology for core client BPW Bergische Achse is being played out not only in Germany but also in UK courts.

The patent attorneys are therefore well placed to represent their core clients at the UPC. These medium-sized clients have so far been hesitant to use the court and are currently focusing on national litigation. The firm has therefore only been active in the background for its regular clients, but not in the courtroom. However, its good contacts, especially to medical device manufacturers and automotive suppliers, as well as its close relationships with several law firms that have recently been very active at the UPC, such as Hoyng ROKH Monegier and McDermott, may result in Dreiss patent attorneys becoming more involved with the UPC in the long term.

Strengths

Patent litigation in engineering, mechanics and electronics focusing on medical devices companies and automotive suppliers.

Recommended individuals

Alexander Bulling (“outstanding expert”, competitor), Andreas Pfund (“quick and thorough”, competitor), David Sinz, Klaus Thielking (all patent attorneys)

Team

21 patent attorneys

Clients

Litigation: Barberan against Hymmen over industrial printing technology; BPW Bergische Achsen against Meritor and other competitors over brake technology for trucks; Koroyd against Burton and Lloyd over ski and snowboarding helmets; Pioneer against TomTom over navigation technology; Paul Hartmann against various competitors in oppositions and revocation action over medical technology; frequent litigation for Robert Bosch and Essity. EPO oppositions: Philip Morris against JTI and Nicoventures over e-cigarettes and traditional cigarettes; Gretsch-Unitas over mechanical technologies (including national oppositions).