JUVE Comment

Since the UPC’s launch, Bardehle Pagenberg has set the standard for other top-tier law firms. This German-headquartered mixed IP firm clearly positioned itself early for UPC litigation, making significant investments in preliminary client advice. This strategy has paid dividends through numerous new clients, while existing clients continue to entrust their cases to the team. As a result, Bardehle Pagenberg is one of the firms with the most extensive UPC litigation experience in the market.

The practice around Tilman Müller-Stoy has reinforced its team with both lawyers and patent attorneys, and nurtures young talent. It consistently deploys well-coordinated mixed teams in proceedings.

Bardehle leverages its telecommunications expertise through litigation for clients including Philips, Dolby, NEC, Huawei, InterDigital, and Orange. This gives the firm a particularly strong presence in electronics proceedings at the UPC, thanks predominantly to the team led by Tilman Müller and Volkmar Henke.

Bardehle Pagenberg is highly sought after by midsized clients such as Bega, a washing machine cabinet manufacturer. The firm recently impressed the market with new cases spanning various technologies, particularly mobile communications and biotech.

The team’s successful track record demonstrates that many companies can effectively navigate UPC proceedings without requiring international teams.

Strengths

Litigation in mixed teams, especially mobile communications.

Recommended individuals

Tilman Müller-Stoy (“first choice for all our cases”, “impressive presence in UPC cases” clients; “instinct for winning arguments”, competitor), Johannes Heselberger (“had very good experience with him in UPC cases”, client; “excellent presentation style in court proceedings”, competitor), Tobias Wuttke (“great legal understanding and instinct”, competitor)

Team

30 litigators, 39 patent attorneys, 3 dual qualified

Clients

Philips against Belkin and Anker over wireless power; Dolby against Epson over audio decoding; NEC against Shenzhen Transsion and Hisense over video decoding device; JVCKenwood against Hisense over decoding; ETRI against Hisense over video coding; Huawei and Sun Patent Trust and ETRI against Shenzhen Transsion over decoding; Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft against HMD over decoding and audio signals; Navigate LLC against HMD over program volume; Orange against HMD over decoding digital audio signals; Sun Patent Trust against Roku over video coding; Dolby against Roju over image data; InterDigital against Shenzhen Transsion over coding; Aylo against Dish over streaming; NVIDIA against BF exaQC ParTec over computer cluster; Nintendo against Malikie over Navigation Tool Holder; Qualcomm against Network System Technologies over integrated circuit with data communication network; Cisco against Lionra over wireless networks; Adeia Guides against Walt Disney over interactive media content delivery system; 10x Genomics against Curio Bioscience over nucleic acids; 10x Genomics against Vizgen and Bruker and Luxendo over RNA detection; Spruce Biosciences against Neurocrine Biosciences in a case related to testicular adrenal rest tumours; Juul Labs and VMR against NJOY over vaping technology; Amgen against Alexion over biosimilars eculizumab/Soliris/Stelara/Eylea.