JUVE Comment

This mixed Munich IP firm combines a strong prosecution practice with activity in patent disputes. While its litigation work spans a broad technical spectrum, Maiwald maintains a particularly strong presence in pharmaceutical and biotech patent cases. The firm deploys mixed teams of patent attorneys and litigators to conduct infringement proceedings, primarily for generic drug companies such as Hexal and Stada.

The patent attorneys also handle EPO oppositions for originators such as Merck. The firm’s flagship department represents prominent clients including CureVac and the discoverers of CRISPR-Cas technology and their university in EPO oppositions.

A mixed litigation team currently conducts extensive proceedings for KUS Technologies concerning AdBlue sensors and for E-MAK regarding asphalt milling machines. This technical breadth is now reflected in UPC proceedings, where the litigation team has become increasingly active.

European set-up

While the patent attorneys have long been active in nullity actions and EPO oppositions connected to pan-European infringement proceedings, the lawyers appear less frequently in pan-European disputes than mixed competitors such as Hoffmann Eitle. With its strong footprint in the generic pharma industry, the firm’s highly active patent attorney practice secured its first UPC case representing Dr Reddy’s/Betapharm against Sanofi in the dispute over prostate cancer drug cabazitaxel, with the lawyers now also involved. The firm handles most UPC cases, such as SSAB Swedish Steel against Tiroler Rohre or E-MAK against Witgen, through its proven combination of legal and technical advisors. The firm also represents these clients in EPO oppositions (Powermat) and national proceedings (E-MAK).

Maiwald’s relatively modest UPC caseload compared to competitors such as Bardehle or Meissner Bolte partly reflects its strong focus on pharmaceuticals. However, as the industry has begun to overcome its initial reluctance towards the new court since summer 2025, this creates additional opportunities for Maiwald to secure more UPC cases alongside manufacturers of generics and biosimilars.

Looking ahead, the firm’s mixed approach and substantial size, combined with strong connections to Asian companies such as Baidu and Huawei, could generate additional UPC work. Chinese electronics companies in particular are already regularly active before the new court – predominantly as defendants.

Strengths

Litigation with technical expertise in biotech, pharmaceuticals and chemicals. Licensing contracts. Excellent US contacts.

Recommended individuals

Marco Stief (“his team offers the full package at a very fair price”, clients; “excellent expertise, always up to date on the latest technology”, competitor); patent attorneys: Dirk Bühler (“hugely experienced biotech patent prosecutor”, competitor), Eva Ehlich, Regina Neuefeind

Team

82 patent attorneys, 7 lawyers

Clients

Litigation: Hexal against MSD over sitagliptin-metformin/Janumet; Stada against Roche over cancer drug bevacizumab/Avastin; UCB against Ossifi over osteoporosis drug romosozumab/Evenity; E-MAK against Witgen over asphalt milling; KUS against SSI over AdBlue sensors in trucks; Lindt against Katjes over vegan chocolate; SCI against Essity over dispenser part; Footprint against OneFid over device for measuring shoe sizes (settled 2025). EPO oppositions: Merck against competitors over formulation patent regarding c-Met inhibitor tepotinib/Tepmetko; Abbisko/Merck against Deciphera Pharmaceuticals over the active agent pimicotinib; Hexal aiganst NovoNordisk over type-2 diabetes drug semaglutide/Rybelsus; Borealis against various competitors over polymers; Philip Morris against Fontem over electronic smoking device; Powermat against IKEA, Continental and Bury regarding wireless charging technology (some public knowledge).