JUVE Comment

This firm, best known in patents for its strong visibility in litigation, is among the leading practices and held its position at the top of the market. Like last year, BP was seen in a multitude of proceedings, esp. mobile communications battles. Bardehle now has a reputation as a firm for NPE litigation; it represented Intellectual Ventures in some of the year’s largest proceedings. But this only tells half the story, as the litigation for BMW against NPE Synchronicity shows. Though Bardehle is often active for industry clients, it does not shy away from conducting selected NPE suits. The firm’s visibility in pharmaceuticals suits remains low and most likely will only improve with preeminent laterals. In this regard, Bardehle can take a more relaxed view of the UPC following the Brexit vote. It will not need an office in London for the time being, esp. as it is unclear what will become of the UPC’s pharmaceuticals division, which was going to be in London. On balance, with its mixed litigation approach, the international focus of its lawyers and offices in Milan and Paris, Bardehle is well on its way to becoming a top European IP firm, esp. as competition from British firms for its strong US client base is likely to disappear due to Brexit.

Strengths

Patent prosecution and mixed litigation practice primarily for mobile communications and software patents. Strong European presence and excellent US contacts.

Recommended individuals

Johannes Heselberger, Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy; patent attorneys: Peter Hess, Dr. Christof Karl, Johannes Lang.

Team

23 patent attorneys, 12 lawyers

Practice

All-round IP activity with a clear focus on technical protection rights. Filing on a broad technical spectrum. Opposition and nullity suits and infringement proceedings. Litigation coordination and strategic advice. Many industrial contacts. Strong international client base.

Clients

BMW against Synchronicity; Intellectual Ventures against Vodafone and DTAG; Amazon against SLC (both regarding mobile communications); Adidas regarding sneakers; Microsoft concerning smartphones; Vedanti concerning video streaming; filing and opposition suits for Adidas, Apple, Dell, Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, Nintendo, Qualcomm, Wago.