JUVE Comment

The patent attorneys at this mixed IP boutique have a strong reputation for prosecution and litigation across a broad technological spectrum. Ongoing litigation campaigns for Brita over water filtration, Cybex over child seats and Comscope over wi-fi routers exemplify this breadth.

The firm’s client base is expanding, largely due to new work from Asian companies, including an Asian feed manufacturer. Alongside this growth in Asia, the firm is undergoing internal transformation. After several departures weakened its lawyer team in recent years, the litigation team has now stabilised and is handling an increasing number of cases. The team is growing most rapidly in UPC work, whilst also managing litigation for regular clients such as Britta and Cybex in national courts.

The next step will be to increase the visibility of these considerable activities in the market, as Meissner Bolte is currently known primarily for the litigation work of its patent attorneys, who have recently been involved in numerous nullity proceedings and EPO oppositions. For instance, they participated in the first submission to the Enlarged Board of Appeal (G1/25) in 2025 for Rockwool in an opposition case over a growth medium for hydrocultures.

The experienced patent litigator Wolfgang Götz joining from Klaka at the end of 2025 may help the lawyer team position itself more prominently in the market. At the time of going to press, it was not yet clear which clients he will bring with him from his former firm.

European set-up

As a predominantly national patent firm, where patent attorneys comprise the majority of fee earners, Meissner Bolte has occasionally been involved in the German proceedings of some international patent disputes, but it has never reached the prominence of other mixed law firms such as Bardehle Pagenberg or Vossius & Partner. Nevertheless, Meissner Bolte’s litigation team has made a surprisingly strong start at the UPC. The firm’s patent attorneys are involved in various separate revocation actions at the central division, namely for Bitzer concerning a cold chain monitoring patent and for inventor Manuela Hoffmann regarding a woodworking machine.

The clients are typically medium-sized businesses, which Meissner Bolte’s mixed litigation team represents at national courts, the EPO, and now also the UPC across a wide range of technical fields. For example, the litigation team filed a lawsuit on behalf of Brita against two competitors concerning water filtration technology.

However, in about half of its UPC cases the firm acts for the defence, representing Vantiva Technologies in a mobile communications lawsuit, for example. It also represents Arçelik and Beko in a lawsuit filed by Dolby regarding audio decoding standards. After already intensive litigation at national level, long-standing client Cybex has recently faced a lawsuit filed by Wonderland at the UPC.

To position itself for UPC litigation against international law firms such as Hogan Lovells, Meissner Bolte has established permanent cooperation with French firm Santarelli, Italian firm SIB LEX and Dutch firm Arnold & Siedsma in recent years. Under the EPLN brand, the four firms were first movers in collaborating on UPC issues compared to some similar national competitors, but all four firms continue to operate independently. Their partnership is not as integrated as Vossius Brinkhof UPC Litigators, which jointly represents clients in UPC courtrooms. Instead, the EPLN firms share knowledge and develop expertise specific to each firm’s jurisdiction. This is already the case for clients such as Brita and Vantiva.

Strengths

Litigation by patent attorneys for SMEs regarding mechanical and mobile communications patents.

Recommended individuals

Florian Meyer (“great services, timely and thorough follow-up, honest partnership”, client), Gernot Schröer, Jasper Werhahn, Stefan Zech (all patent attorneys)

Team

60 patent attorneys, 7 lawyers

Partner moves

Wolfgang Götz (from Klaka)

Clients

Litigation: CommScope/Andrew Wireless Systems against various competitors over wi-fi repeaters in trains; Cybex against various competitors over children’s seats; Andritz against Villforth over paper machine screens; Brita against Wessper over filter cartridges for water dispensers; MU Ionic Solutions Corporation against Opel over car batteries (settled 2025); frequent litigation for Acandis over implants for blood vessels; Continental over car parts; Draylok over hygiene products and SFC over OLED displays. EPO oppositions: Rockwool against Knauff Insulation over growth medium for hydrocultrues; Posco against ArcelorMittal over coated steel; SolarWatt against REC Solar over solar panels; Himpp against Dolby over audio technology.