JUVE Comment

This patent attorney firm led by name partner Bernhard Thum has gained prominence in the market through its involvement in numerous high-profile UPC disputes. The team is thus one of few pure patent attorney firms to have successfully entered this new area of work through early and intensive engagement with UPC litigation. Among the most significant cases currently pending before the UPC are its representations of Edwards Lifesciences concerning heart catheters, Canfield regarding medical 3D imaging, Scania over lorries, and Nixu in relation to cloud computing. This active representation and the experience gained are attracting new clients. Although the firm currently appears less frequently in purely domestic litigation, new cases — such as those for Papst Licensing and SRAM — are running in parallel before both national courts and the UPC.

The team also enjoys an excellent reputation for EPO oppositions, regularly representing long-standing clients such as Juul Labs and SRAM, as well as new clients such as Sonova.

By expanding its prosecution work through new client relationships, the growing firm is establishing a solid commercial foundation. This expansion has justified opening a second office in Constance, which is primarily attracting Swiss companies and regional SMEs. The new prosecution client, Swiss footwear manufacturer On, exemplifies this positive development.

Strengths

Litigation concerning medical technology and mechanics.

Recommended individuals

Bernhard Thum, Jonas Weickert (both patent attorneys)

Team

14 patent attorneys

Clients

Litigation: Papst Licensing against Roborock over robotic vacuum cleaners; SRAM against Fox over Bicycle suspension fork; SRAM against Fox over bicycle suspension forks; easy2cool vs. Supaso concerning insulation elements. EPO oppositions: Edwards Lifesciences against Meril Life Sciences over heart valves; Juul Labs against Philip Morris, Smokeless.world and Nicoventures over vaporization devices; SRAM against Shimano over bicycle components; Sonova against Oticon/WS Audiology over hearing device; Scania against Volvo over truck components; Karl Storz against B. Braun, Stryker, Ethicon and E.M.S. Electro Medical Systems over endoscopes, medical imaging, and surgical assistance machines; BSH against Electrolux over range hoods; i-mop against Kärcher, Numatic, Diversey, Star Teknik over floor treatment devices; Oakley against UVEX over eyewear (all public knowledge).