JUVE Comment

The sheer number of proceedings (no other German firm conducts more litigation at present), extremely good ties in the court city Düsseldorf and the huge appeal of Verhauwen secure KM a top position among the German patent litigation firms. In mobile communications proceedings the firm fights on the side of pure NPEs but also for the industry-oriented MPEG4-Pool and its members. This dispute alone gave rise to many proceedings and vast know-how in SEP and FRAND issues. Away from the MPEG4-Pool, industry clients like Saint-Gobain retain KM less frequently than Hogan Lovells, Bird & Bird and Rospatt, although KM does boast its own industry contacts. Good patent attorney connections and numerous proceedings involving various technologies from the high-end Mittelstand ensure a high utilization rate. In pharmaceuticals litigation the firm is less active than direct competitors, e.g. Rospatt and Wildanger.

Strengths

Infringement proceedings, especially in Düsseldorf and related to telecoms and software. Litigation for NPEs. Employee invention law.

European strategy

The boutique is taking a wait-and-see approach to the potential UPC launch. It still rules out a merger with European firms and instead relies on non-exclusive cooperations. This may limit its opportunities in cross-border proceedings and before the UPC. The firm will therefore have to rely entirely on the huge appeal of its lawyers.

Recommended individuals

Axel Verhauwen (“outstanding”, competitor), Dr. Jochen Bühling, Gereon Rother, Dr. Michael Bergermann.

Team

8 partners, 3 associates

Practice

All-round IP activity with a clear focus on patent litigation. Employee invention law. Trademarks and unfair competition.

Clients

Litigation: frequent activity for Benteler, Melitta/Swirl, ITW; France Brevets regarding NFC patents; Siemens against Huawei and ZTE concerning MPEG4 patents; Fipa against Samsung and LG regarding mobile communications; Claassen against Vählinge concerning laminates; Novoferm against Hörmann regarding garage doors; Saint-Gobain against 3M concerning adhesive; Tesa against 3M regarding protective films.