JUVE Comment

This compact Munich-based patent attorney firm has evolved into a highly regarded practice in recent years. The firm is particularly sought after for strategic prosecution and opposition proceedings, specialising in electronics and mechanical engineering, primarily at the intersection with IT and mobile communications. The team maintains high visibility in numerous opposition proceedings, including work for ZF Friedrichshafen and Crown Equipment.

The firm regularly conducts litigation for long-standing clients in collaboration with external lawyers. It has recently attracted new clients for strategic prosecution and litigation work, predominantly from the medical technology sector.

The team recently faced the departure of founding partner Benjamin Bubendorfer, who established a consulting firm outside patent law. While his departure has not significantly impacted the business or client base, it does represent the loss of an experienced patent attorney.

European set-up

The UPC’s launch has brought fresh momentum and new clients to this Munich-based patent attorney firm. The practice is benefiting from its strong network of US and Asian clients, alongside its expertise in medical technology, as the UPC often presents an attractive option for these clients. The team’s solid support of its client base in UPC litigation is exemplified by its representation of medical technology manufacturer Fisher & Paykel Healthcare against Flexicare.

Strengths

Litigation over electronics, mobile communications and medical device patents.

Recommended individuals

Thorsten Haslinde, Marc Wachenhausen (both patent attorneys)

Team

10 patent attorneys

Partner moves

Benjamin Bubendorfer (to own firm)

Clients

Litigation: Ferdinand Peer against Comuto over ride-sharing; Optical Imaging against Zeiss over imaging technology for ophthalmology; Ferdinand Peer against Comuto over navigation technology (settled 2025); MB Digitalprint against Schneider over sealing technology (settled 2025); Invacare against Sunrise Medical over wheelchairs (settled 2025). EPO opposition: Crown Equipment against Linde over batteries; Genesis against Jakobs Douwe Egberts over drinks dispensers; Neovasc Tiara against Edwards Lifesciences over heart valves; Shockwave Medical against Abbott over shockwave catheter systems; ZF Friedrichshafen against Continental over brake pistons; ZF Friedrichshafen against Robert Bosch over drive configuration (both public knowledge).