JUVE Comment

Bird & Bird has delivered an impressive performance this year, handling high-profile cases for clients including Edwards Lifesciences, Huawei, Broadcom, Maxeon, Nestlé and Teva. The mixed team represents its client base across a broad spectrum of technologies. Its distinguished team of partners, comprising lawyers Christian Harmsen, Oliver Jüngst and Boris Kreye, alongside patent attorneys such as Daniela Kinkeldey, commands an excellent reputation for patent litigation.

A highlight of the year was the CJEU ruling in the BSH vs Electrolux case, which expanded the jurisdictional scope of both the UPC and national courts across Europe. Harmsen led the German aspects and was involved in securing the CJEU ruling. In another significant CJEU matter, a team led by Jüngst represented Teva in a dispute concerning SPCs for combination products.

Furthermore, the international firm has established itself as one of the European market leaders at the UPC, handling numerous proceedings at the new court since its inception.

European set-up

Bird & Bird has long maintained its position as a leading European practice, with renowned patent litigation teams in key jurisdictions including Germany, France, the Netherlands, and the UK. IP lies at the heart of the firm’s DNA, and it adopted an internationally integrated approach early on. This has resulted in cross-border teams appearing in numerous pan-European proceedings across life sciences and mobile communications.

This strategy now benefits clients at the UPC, where Bird & Bird has quickly become one of the most active firms. Under the strong leadership of German and French partners, the firm handles various high-profile UPC proceedings, with particular strength in medical technology for clients such as Dexcom, Edwards Lifesciences and NanoString.

As one of Europe’s largest teams, Bird & Bird possesses the resources to handle multiple complex UPC cases simultaneously. Its extensive client base offers scope for expansion beyond Europe. While the firm already maintains strong relationships with Japanese clients such as Canon, it now needs to raise its profile in the US to strengthen connections with American clients for pan-European litigation.

The successful representation of NanoString against 10x Genomics regarding RNA diagnostic devices, including preventing a preliminary injunction, demonstrates the firm’s continued excellence in pan-European disputes at the UPC.

This extensive experience continues to attract new clients. For instance, the team prevented a preliminary injunction for new client Celltrion against Novartis and Genentech in the omalizumab dispute. A particular UPC highlight has been the comprehensive and successful representation of Edwards Lifesciences against Meril in the heart valve case.

Strengths

Litigation across a broad range of technical fields, with a strong focus on pharmaceuticals (for both originators and generics companies) and mobile communications (including SEP and FRAND issues) provided by mixed teams. Interoffice cooperation in one of the strongest European IP practices.

Recommended individuals

Christian Harmsen (“quick, sound, pragmatic with a good understanding of a company’s needs”, client), Oliver Jüngst, Boris Kreye, Annika Lückemann, Matthias Meyer, Felix Rödiger (“the best lawyer you could dream of”, client); patent attorneys: Daniela Kinkeldey, Felix Landry

Team

34 lawyers, 15 patent attorneys

Partner moves

Anna Wolters-Höhne (from A&O Shearman)

Clients

Litigation: Electrolux against BSH over vacuum cleaners; Huawei against Netgear over wi-fi 6; Huawei against MediaTek over 4G and 5G (public knowledge); Nokia against Acer, Asus and Hisense over high efficiency video coding; Broadcom against Netflix over streaming technology; Betapharm against Millenial Pharma over Velcade/bortezomib; CureVac against BioNTech over mRNA patent; Teva against MSD at CJEU on SPCs in relation to combination products; Teva/Ratiopharm against Bayer over Xarelto/riverroxaban; Valeo against SEF over start-stop generators; Katjes against Lindt over vegan chocolate. EPO oppositions: Ecovacs against Dreame over vacuum robots; Nissan against Neo Wireless over wireless broadband; Neo against Rhodia over auto catalytic converters.