The developments seen in this market-leading patent litigation practice could not have contrasted more. Following two quiet years by QE’s standards, the litigation for Qualcomm against Apple led to a huge rise in litigation work. In terms of case numbers, the practice is almost on a par with Düsseldorf boutiques. The fact that Grosch’s team masters mobile communications patents and the enforcement of these before the courts to such an extent is largely thanks to close ties with Google. But the years in which the Quinn team alone litigated for the Internet giant in Germany are over. Hogan Lovells is now in on the Google action too. More relevant in terms of the patents team’s development, however, was that the firm finally succeeded in providing long-awaited, high-profile pharmaceuticals litigation for Pfizer. But the firm suffered a loss: Ebersohl one of the three partners, went to Allen & Overy. Though he was not the most visible partner, his departure is a setback to the urgently required broadening of the practice. The firm is hoping to compensate for this by three counsel appointments. Further staff growth is also necessary if the firm wants to survive against Hogan Lovells or Bird & Bird in cross-border litigation, incl. before the UPC.
Litigation related to telecoms. Opposition and nullity suits by lawyers. Strong US practice.
As the strongest litigation practice in Mannheim and with a good presence at Düsseldorf and Munich patent court, and an office in Hamburg focusing on soft IP, Quin Emanuel is well set for the UPC launch. It has chosen not to have comparably strong patents teams in Paris and London – a brave strategy based on Grosch’s extremely strong visibility and the preeminent US practice. The market is not convinced that this strategy will suffice to match up to Hogan Lovells or Bird & Bird when cross-border cases are assigned. Raising the headcount could help.
Dr. Marcus Grosch, Dr. Johannes Bukow.
2 partners, 3 counsel, 8 associates
Dr. Jan Ebersohl (to Allen & Overy).
In Germany, IP activity centers on patent litigation. Also cancellation proceedings, opposition and nullity suits and infringement proceedings. In Hamburg, soft IP and antitrust on the interface with patents.
Litigation: frequent activity for Daimler, Carl Freudenberg and Sisvel; Qualcomm against Apple; Motorola against Saint Lawrence; Google against Philips (all regarding mobile communications); Pfizer against Ono and Tasuku in rei vindicatio action concerning antibody; DTS against Broadcom concerning smartphone chips; Everlight against Nichia concerning LEDs; DSM concerning enzyme treatment in milk preparations; SWM regarding cigarette paper.
Hamburg, Mannheim, Munich