JUVE Patent

Michalski Hüttermann & Partner – Germany 2022

JUVE Comment

In infringement proceedings, this well-positioned patent attorney firm mainly advises on the technical aspects of mechanics and electronics patents. These cases are largely run from Düsseldorf, such as that for Quantificare in the dispute over 3D cameras for plastic surgery. The biotech team is also particularly active in EPO oppositions.

Ulrich Storz, for example, played a prominent role as a strawman in battles over CRISPR patents. Other patent attorneys are conducting a series of opposition suits for Wilo (heat pumps), Classen (floor coverings) and TK Elevators (lifts).

The firm also operates a very active prosecution practice spanning a wide range of technical fields. Patents relating to digital applications and software are playing a growing role, for instance in the work for dSpace in connection with simulation devices for the auto industry. In addition to electronics and mechanics patents for German SMEs in the automotive sector, as well as global corporations like Thyssenkrupp and Siemens, the patent attorneys are firmly rooted among clients in the pharma sector. Consequently, the firm expanded its team with another patent attorney, with a background in biology and neurology. The firm also bolstered its team with another mechanical engineering expert.

With its client base in prosecution and strong headcount, Michalski Hüttermann counts among the three heavyweight patent attorney firms in western Germany, along with Dompatent and Cohausz & Florack. That said, the firm is still seen far less often in infringement proceedings on the side of lawyers than its two competitors.


Litigation regarding biotech, electronics and software patents. Prosecution also regarding chemistry, automotive and mechanics.

European set-up

The patent attorneys often appear in lawsuits on the side of lawyers from German IP boutiques like Klaka and Preu Bohlig. These are typically national disputes for German SMEs, who are unlikely to be among the first users of the UPC. The patent attorneys are not active as often in the German suits in complex pan-European battles for international clients.

Through its prosecution work, however, the firm has close contacts with Asian clients, for whom, with their litigation experience, the patent attorneys could certainly position themselves as UPC litigators – alone or in cooperation with lawyers from boutiques without patent attorneys of their own. This would require further growth to acquire the necessary manpower.

Recommended individuals

Uwe Albersmeyer, Aloys Hüttermann, Stefan Michalski (“well versed in strategic advice”, “outstanding mind”, competitors), Guido Quiram, (“excellent litigator in oppositions, very pragmatic”, client), Dirk Schulz, Ulrich Storz (all patent attorneys)


23 patent attorneys


Clear focus on patent prosecution with broad technical expertise. Focus on automotive sector. Opposition and nullity suits. Infringement proceedings with external lawyers. Employee invention law.


Litigation: Quantificare (claimant) against Canfield over 3D cameras for operations; Küberit (claimant) in employee invention dispute against former CEO (settled 2021); Wilo (claimant) against Grundfos and other competitors in oppositions over heating pumps; TK Elevators (claimant and defendant) against competitors over elevators; dSpace (defendant) against diverse opponents in EPO opposition over simulation technology for the automotive industry; strawman in EPO opposition against CRISPR patent of Broad Institute (settled 2021). Prosecution: filing and oppositions for Acer, Classen, Deutsche Post/DHL, dSpace, Flender, Gigaset, Hengst, Heye, Hitachi, Immatics, Kiekert, Neosat, NTT, Phoenix Contact, Quanta Computer, TK Elevator, Umlaut, Via Alliance. Advice: Immatics on employee invention law; advice including FTO analysis to Wilo; Classen on licences.


Düsseldorf, Essen, Frankfurt, Munich