After another hugely successful year, it is clear that this mixed IP firm remains a market leader in both patent litigation and filing. Compared to many other German IP firms, BaPa has a clear international focus when it comes to litigation. And here it is probably only Hoyng ROKH Monegier that can be said to have the edge over Bardehle. The former is regarded as working more consistently between its international offices, whereas Bardehle’s German lawyers work less frequently with their counterparts in Paris or Verona, for example. Nevertheless, the firm has an excellent reputation in the US, with clients from the semiconductor and mobile phone industries using the firm for patent prosecution. Particularly in mobile communication cases, Bardehle’s mixed-team approach has allowed it to straddle the line between representing NPEs such as Intellectual Ventures (IV) and companies such as Microsoft. The firm was highly present in the major suits surrounding connected cars patents. It also represented Nintendo and Blackberry in an important case over computer chips. Some competitors have criticised the fact that the firm has yet to see a significant victory for NPE IV in Europe's most extensive dispute of the past two years. This headline work for IV has obscured just how broadly the litigation team is active elsewhere, and in particular and how often it is on the industry side. This is partly down to the recruitment of former Freshfields partner Chrocziel, who brought good ties to Audi, Microsoft and Hewlett-Packard. That trend was confirmed by an mprovement in the firm’s activities in the healthcare sectore - with litigation for Amgen – when it has been more of a weak flank up unti now. It also represents numerous medical product manufacturers, including a Japanese pharmaceuticals manufacturer.
The patent attorneys at this Düsseldorf IP boutique have long been market leaders in litigation and prosecution. The firm had an outstanding year in both mobile communication patents and pharmaceuticals. C&F was invloved in the CRISPR Cas cases, which are of huge significance for the sector, and advised its core client Bayer on some key proceedings. C&F was the only firm to advise on both sides in the disputes over connected cars, with its team advising both the plaintiff Nokia as well as car markers Audi, VW and Porsche. This underlines how deftly C&F has positioned itself and made the most of its vast sector know-how. The firm continues to litigate for NPEs such as France Brevet and Fundamental Innovation as well as companies in extensive mobile communication cases on a regular basis.Further Analysis
This Munich firm consists purely of patent attorneys but is highly visible the in German litigation market. A number of individuals enjoy an outstanding reputation for pharma and mobile communications cases. Partners such as Dörries, Greiner (both pharma) and Molnia (mobile communications) are often among the most high profile patent attorneys in the major cases. Once considered an NPE firm due to its work for IPCom, Conversant and Unwired Planet, Molnia’s team is increasingly advising on the industrial side in mobile communications suits. The team boasts extensive know-how in SEP cases. Nokia, for example, has retained df-mp for its suits against Daimler over connected cars, while Wiko has long instructed the team to defend against Ericsson. When it comes to pharma patents and biosimilars, the firm traditionally advises originator manufacturers, but it is seen more and more advising on the opposing side. Df-mp's patent attorneys are sought after in this segment for oppositions, increasingly as a strawman for unknown companies. In addition, the firm has a very active, growing prosecution department, whose technical spectrum is much broader than its flagship specialties would suggest.Further Analysis
This mixed IP firm is a market leader. It operates one of the biggest European prosecution practices and boasts a very strong position among Japanese companies. The litigation team has an excellent reputation for pharma suits. One client praised the team as “first class, especially in pharma proceedings” and competitors say it is “absolutely top in chemistry and biotech”. The lawyers were recently involved in some prominent cases, e.g. for AstraZeneca and Sanofi. However, the litigators have so far struggled to convince clients from other sectors of their litigation experience. The patent attorneys, on the other hand, advise on significant mobile communications cases alongside renowned law firms, e.g. Noerr for Tinder operator MTCH in a suit from instant messaging service Hoccer over app technology. The attorneys also worked with Kather Augenstein for Ericsson against Wiko over mobile communications.
This patent attorney firm from Düsseldorf stands out for its outstanding reputation for litigation, predominantly for pharma and biotech clients. The name partners in particular are extremely visible and regularly represent core clients such as Bayer and Eli Lilly in oppositions and infringement cases over economically significant medicines. The firm is well versed in coordinating international proceedings – a role which usually falls to lawyers and which shows just how well the boutique’s patent attorneys are anchored among its clients. The patent attorneys also have a solid work flow in filing for a loyal client base.Further Analysis
This patent attorney firm has not only a strong position among its clients in mobile communications litigation but is also one of the most strategically active prosecution outfits in the German market. M&N recently opened an office in Frankfurt with the aim of capturing more prosecution work from the Rhine-Main region, but also to be closer to the patent court in Mannheim, which plays an important role in mobile communication suits. The firm represents a long list of notable companies, including Apple, Google, HTC and Vodafone, mainly in defending against NPE suits. It is also active for LG in suits against mobile phone manufacturers. In such proceedings, M&N often works with best-friend firms. However, its ties to clients are becoming increasingly independent, which makes M&N less dependent on litigation firms that, like Hogan Lovells, integrate their own patent attorneys. The intensive litigation in the mobile communications sector stands in opposition to a prosecution practice with a broad technical range. The practice recently saw an uptick in work from medical technology companies. Pharma companies, on the other hand, play a secondary role. One drawback last year was that the good ties to the auto industry and the experience in mobile communications did not result in any connected cars work. This is because one of the most active plaintiffs here is Broadcom and while M&N does represent the chip manufacturer in a case, conflicts prevent the firm from representing Broadcom against the auto industry.Further Analysis
Once again this Munich patent attorney firm confirmed it is one of the most active litigation outfits when it comes to mobile phone patents, esp. for industry. S&P boasts an established relationship with Apple; the iPhone manufacturer consistently called on S&P alongside other firms for technical issues when defending against a wave of lawsuits from Qualcomm. Wiko and Facebook also retain the patent attorneys for German mobile communication cases. In the first major connected cars battle, the Munich outfit was there from the start, advising Continental as co-litigant of VW, as well as Nokia (a core client of S&P) against Daimler. S&P advises such clients regularly, as a multitude of lawyers bring the firm into proceedings. While litigation firms such as Bird & Bird, Hogan Lovells and Hoyng ROKH Monegier are expanding their technical expertise, S&P has countered this with strong and direct contacts to clients. Furthermore, S&P is almost unrivalled among patent attorney firms in its number of partners experienced in litigation. Whereas its litigation is concentrated on mobile communications, the firm’s prosecution work covers a greater breadth of technical fields. These also give rise to litigation outside of mobile communications, such as the work for Vestas concerning wind energy plants and for a weapons manufacturer.Further Analysis
This mixed firm is a market leader in patent filing. B&B advises its clients on a broad technical spectrum and is deeply rooted in computer technologies, mobile telecommunications, chips, software, pharma and biotech. Filing work has strongly increased over the past year, mainly as a result of core clients successfully stepping up their activities or transferring a greater part of their patent portfolio to the firm. B&B expanded its team of patent attorneys accordingly and continues to chart a path for growth. The patent attorneys are also regarded as experienced litigators, but the lawyers are seen as being a step behind and are a smaller team compared to the market leaders. In patent infringement cases, the firm consistently incorporates its lawyer team, which it boosted with another lawyer. While midsized clients and clients from the pharma sector have relied on this full-service approach, international corporates such as Huawei, Intel and LG, have tended call in other firms. Highlights in litigation in infringement cases and before the EPO include comprehensive proceedings for Gabo Systemtechnik concerning a key patent for pipe bundles for laying fibreglass cables. The firm’s strategy of focusing its lawyers in Munich leaves the Düsseldorf market to its rivals in the competition for young lawyers and laterals, which is surprising as Boehmert has an office there.
This IP firm is one of the most active patent outfits outside Munich, due to its intensive patent-filing work on the one hand, and its strong litigation focus (both patent attorneys and lawyers) on the other. The patent attorneys traditionally litigate in oppositions and nullity cases for nationally and internationally renowned clients such as BASF, Enercon and Philips. That they increasingly work with the small team of lawyers on suits for Philips and various licence pools is a consistent development. Eisenführ is thus more active in the growing litigation work in Germany than other patent attorney outfits. As a litigation firm it is very present in cases where NPEs like Sisvel or industry companies such as Philips attempt to enforce their protection rights. On the corporate side, clients include Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft and Dolby, which have pooled their patents. The patent attorneys handle a high number of patent filings for many notable core clients.
This patent litigation team is well positioned and clients from the automotive and chip industries have helped by entrusting the practice for years with patent prosecution work. Its successful litigation for Broadcom in the first suit over connected cars patents against the VW Group paid off handsomely: a further suit against BMW and Daimler followed in 2019. The litigation team is thus currently at the centre of the disputes over connectivity in the auto industry and the fact that the firm’s lawyers and patent attorneys work together on the case demonstrates how well Grünecker’s mixed approach works. The legal litigation team is led by only two partners, however, and despite some growth at associate level it remains too small to handle more work of this calibre. The prosecution team has a strong position in Europe and is one of the most active in filing at the EPO. Both teams have a broad technical spectrum. The firm does less work in the pharma sector compared to competitors such as Hoffmann Eitle and Vossius, and this remains a weak point. In biotech, however, Grünecker recently stepped up its activities, and is still more active in the medical products sector.
Strong development in the mobile communications sector underlined the status of this mixed firm as a market leader. Not only did the prosecution practice expand its work for heavyweights such as LG and a German mobile phone company, but also the litigation team experienced an upswing. VP’s mixed team is now firmly in the saddle at ZTE, while the three-strong litigation team around Kramer fought for Wiko against both Philips and members of the MPEG-LA pool concerning audio coding patents. This team joined VJP’s Düsseldorf office in early 2018 and was quickly integrated, partly thanks to the work for Wiko. Despite the uncertainty surrounding the future of the UPC, the firm continues to build up its mixed litigation team. In terms of quality and breadth of top instructions, however, the litigation practice lags behind the market leaders in infringement cases. When it comes to biotech patents, on the other hand, VP is at the head of the European pack. The patent attorneys around Jaenichen, for example, represent CRISPR Therapeutics against the Broad Institute in the dispute over CRISPR/Cas gene editing technology. In medical products the firm has a strong position with numerous cases for Smith & Nephew, ResMed and Boston Scientific.
This patent practice has long been a market leader. It stands out from competitors with its mixed team of lawyers and patent attorneys advising clients comprehensively on a large technology spectrum. Furthermore, B&B represents its clients across all European jurisdictions when it comes to major proceedings, putting it one step ahead of competitors such as Freshfields. The team around Jüngst and Wolters-Höhne boasts an excellent position in pharma cases. One example is its work for core client Ratiopharm resulting in a highly regarded ruling on a cancer drug containing fulvestrant. The team around Harmsen currently represents Huawei in an extensive case surrounding video signal coding. In Knorr Bremse B&B has managed to capture a new client requiring both litigation and prosecution, although in general the firm’s prosecution practice is less strategically significant. However, B&B has clearly found a way to integrate its patent attorneys (who primarily focus on litigation) in a way that not only makes business sense but that also opens up more potential missing at rival firms such as Hogan Lovells. The fact that six of the equity partners are patent attorneys underlines the success of this strategy. A further partner appointment in Munich provides scope for further client growth and outlines the firm’s intention to advise companies on the development of new technologies. However, despite its good ties to key players such as Nokia and Broadcom, the team has yet to be seen in any connected-cars cases.
The patent attorneys at this Munich IP firm are known for litigation over mobile communication patents. This renown mainly stems from the firm’s successful litigation for non-practising entity SLC, but this flagship case has now largely come to an end. BJ is yet to implement its plans to capitalise on its expertise in mobile telecommunication patents gained through NPE suits and advise more companies. The reason for this departure from NPE work is the firm’s filing work for industrial core clients. The firm is increasingly seen at the side of other law firms, as the once close cooperation between BJ and litigators at major German full-service firm Noerr has decreased. The firms mainly cooperated in NPE suits, but this move makes sense if both outfits want to step up litigation for their automotive clients in connected cars. BJ still needs to build up a presence here, but its recognised expertise in SEP and FRAND issues is an excellent reference for this work.Further Analysis
This Berlin firm boasts brisk filing work for Asian companies and the German car industry and is very active in infringement cases. The litigation team around Scheffler has amassed a good deal of experience in standard-relevant patents for mobile communications through proceedings for flagship client Haier before the Federal Court of Justice. G&P predominantly consists of patent attorneys but the work for Haier helped establish the firm as a mixed litigation team. G&P is heavily involved in proceedings for the tobacco industry, e.g. for Imperial Tobacco subsidiary Reemtsma. Such cases show how the firm’s litigation activity stems mainly from prosecution work or, as in Imperial Tobacco’s case, strategic portfolio management. G&P is firmly anchored among Asian clients through its offices in Beijing and Yokohama. The result of all this is that the partnership managed to implement an almost seamless generation change. The last of the name partners retired in 2018 and the younger partners have moved up the ranks, although the current leadership now needs to establish greater presence in the market. One solution could be more litigation work for Asian mobile phone companies. G&P has good contacts to the Samsung Group, for example. The ties to VW and some auto suppliers are also excellent. Despite its combination of contacts and experience, however, G&P was not involved in the initial battles over connected cars.Further Analysis
This US firm has a large and experienced mixed team in Germany. Compared with some rivals, JD has a broader prosecution practice and a somewhat weaker litigation practice. Predominantly clients from the biotech and pharma sectors call on the firm for international patent cases in multiple jurisdictions, thus profiting from the global network. The practice represented the MSD subsidiary Idenix Pharmaceuticals against Gilead in a high-profile dispute over an expensive hepatitis C drug. Companies also turn to JD for mechanics and engineering patents. The practice has good contacts to auto suppliers but was not involved in the current wave of connected cars suits. This field holds potential for the practice, as it recently took on patent attorneys with good ties in this sector.
With its mixed approach, this Munich firm is geared towards disputes. This work is based on a strong prosecution business, which the practice recently beefed up with young patent attorneys, especially in engineering. Some three years ago Maiwald saw several departures, but these have now been compensated for, and is now close to re-establishing its former full-service approach with a number of technical practice areas which are equally strong. The firm is expanding its client base in digital communication and computer technologies but pharma and biotech patents remain Maiwald’s calling card. Indeed the firm is at the top of the market when it comes to prosecution and litigation in biotech. One example is Maiwald’s involvement in the battle over CRISPR/Cas for the University of California. In the majority of pharma disputes, the firm is either on the side of generics manufacturers such as 1A Pharma, Hexal and Dr Reddy's or for originator companies such as Fresenius Kabi, Eli Lilly and Perdue. The lawyer team around Stief has an excellent reputation for licensing and R&D contracts while prosecution clients such as Huawei and Intel provide a good basis for increasing the firm’s presence in mobile phone suits long term. Bolstering the Düsseldorf office with further lawyers remains the most pressing challenge, especially with regard to the UPC.
The strength of this mixed IP firm is its breadth. It is anchored in numerous sectors and technical fields. The prosecution practice has a solid position among German midsized companies and has good ties to notable international clients such as Facebook and Johnson Controls. Only in pharma is the firm unable to compete with the presence of other Munich outfits such as Hoffmann Eitle. The agile litigation team around Wuttke has not only expanded its headcount, but also its technical breadth. E.g. the team’s work for Deutsche Telekom in mobile communications proceedings is firmly established. Following a merger in 2018 with a small patent attorney firm, MB gained a Düsseldorf office, which it is now integrating into its prosecution practice. The office brought important ties to BASF. Litigation does not play a role at present, but in the medium term the office could bring a stronger toehold at an important patent court. However, MB needs to establish experienced litigators here.
This patent attorney firm has a broad technical spectrum, but attracts attention mainly for Aechter’s and Hollatz’s litigation for pharma manufacturers. Recently work for generics manufacturers predominated. For example, Ter Meer was active for Accord, Hexal and 1A Pharma in numerous pharma cases. This is thanks to the excellent ties to lawyer firms such as Taylor Wessing. Although the firm filed many patents for LG, the patent attorneys are still not on the radar for mobile communication suits. Ter Meer has a broad prosecution practice outside of pharma and mobile communication patents.Further Analysis
This mixed Munich IP firm is well established with its good reputation for litigation. The prosecution practice covers a broad range of technical fields. The work of the patent attorneys is clearly dominated by pharma and biotech on the one hand and the auto industry on the other. WRST bolstered the former by appointing a fourth equity partner, but the firm is predominantly known for the latter. The mechanics team is highly active in nullity and infringement cases. At present, classic litigation between suppliers over auto parts predominates. It was only a question of time, however, until WRST attracted attention in connected cars. The patent attorneys advise core client BMW. Other infringement cases are handled by one of the five patent attorneys, while the remaining four are mainly active in soft IP. The litigation teams at other mixed firms such as Meissner Bolte and Vossius are considerably larger. In order to compete, WRST needs to make strengthening the team a priority.Further Analysis
The Munich patent-attorney firm has a strong focus on disputes. Thanks mainly to Katérle’s litigation in infringement cases concerning mobile communications patents, W&W enjoys a good reputation. He continues to represent LG in two suits against NPEs Fipa and Conversant, together with external lawyers. The firm is also advising Asus in a major mobile phone dispute. The combination of experience in mobile communications litigation and very close ties to auto suppliers makes the firm a good candidate for connected car suits. Up to now, W&W has mainly represented its core clients such as Valeo and ZF TRW in classic cases concerning auto components. However, ZF is developing ever more connected car applications, which could be an opportunity for the firm to get involved in such cases. Another traditional focus for W&W is pharma and biotech; the firm often conducts oppositions and appeals before the EPO. The extensive prosecution work in a plethora of technical fields gives rise to much litigation work across an equally varied spectrum.Further Analysis
This Essen-based firm is one of the best known patent-attorney litigation teams in the country. Not not did they conduct a host of oppositions for core clients, but increasingly infringement cases as well. The team recently won an 18-year battle for its most important client Novoferm against Hörmann over electric garage doors. AH represented other clients such as ThyssenKrupp in oppositions before patent offices, without having filed the patents beforehand. In general, however, the firm advises predominantly German clients on technical protection rights. The partner-heavy outfit takes a cautious approach to growth.Further Analysis
A patent attorney firm specialising in patent litigation, almost exclusively active in mobile communications and electronics is something unusual in the German market. And yet it was with this strategy that this new firm (effectively a merger between two teams, one in Düsseldorf, one in Munich) has begun to take shape The two patent attorneys Braun-Dullaeus and Emmerling have an excellent reputation for litigation in mobile communication cases. They represent Deutsche Telekom and Huawei on a regular basis. Both clients are two of the most frequently sued companies by NPEs; they also work with other patent attorney firms. Emmerling is most often seen representing Huawei – not only in the key dispute with Unwired Planet before the Federal Court of Justice, but also against SolarEdge concerning photovoltaic patents. From the start the firm has been busy and has grown rapidly. Erdmann joined the outfit in mid-2019, bringing experience in electronics and mobile communications patents, as well as a specialty in medical technology – a field in which the firm has yet to maximise its potential.Further Analysis
The Cologne IP firm is one of the most active prosecution outfits in the Rhine-Ruhr region, with an outstanding reputation in chemistry and pharmaceutical patents. However, because its most important client in the mobile communications sector, Asus, faces further suits from Philips, the patent attorneys were more active in infringement cases last year. Generally, the patent attorneys work alongside external lawyers, e.g. with Taylor Wessing for Asus. Dompatent’s own lawyers are exclusively active in soft IP cases. The firm has traditionally seen a lot of EPO oppositions and nullity suits concerning pharma and chemistry patents. However, Dompatent is less visible in infringement proceedings than its Munich rivals Vossius and Hoffmann Eitle. Dompatent appointed a partner last year with a Chinese background with the aim of advising more Chinese companies, as well as German companies active in China. Together with good internal growth, these developments have considerably broadened the firm’s offering and finally put paid to its reputation of being a purely chemistry and pharma firm.Further Analysis
The size of this patent-attorney firm in Stuttgart has allowed it to be active on a broad range of work with notable litigation firms in infringement cases, e.g. glue manufacturer Uhu with Hoyng ROKH Monegier in a case against Henkel. Work in China has increased considerably, with the firm able to rely on an informal network for infringement cases before Chinese courts. Dreiss coordinates proceedings, e.g. for engineering company Ersa, vacuum specialist J. Schmalz and Swiss auto supplier Kinetix. With ist strong share of filing work, the firm is a market leader in southwest Germany. Besides its long-standing, midsized clients, corporates such as Nokia also bank on the prosecution know-how of Dreiss’ patent attorneys.Further Analysis
With its office in Hamburg, this patent attorney firm has a strong filing practice in North Germany. It also has a renowned office in Stuttgart with good ties to south German midsized tech companies and a focus on auto suppliers. The firm’s prosecution work increasingly gives rise to litigation, for example the patent attorneys represented Carl Zeiss. The highlight was the litigation for Carl Zeiss in the German proceedings against Nikon concerning lithography machines for computer chips. The good ties to a Munich litigation firm granted GDM access to mobile communications companies. The patent attorneys conducted the first infringement proceedings for ZTE and TCL together with Taliens. Nevertheless, such ties to external lawyers do not seem to have encouraged the firm to develop more rapidly its own mixed practice.Further Analysis
The team at this Munich IP boutique enjoys a good reputation for litigation. It has two very different specialties. One the one hand, LSG is active in mobile communication suits with a mixed team around highly experienced litigators. The most important long-standing client here is O2/Telefónica, which LSG successfully defended against a class-action lawsuit from Intellectual Ventures. On the other hand, the patent attorneys’ dispute work is based on a brisk filing business with a high number of priority applications at the German Patents and Trade Mark Agency (DPMA) and a growing proportion of European filings. In addition to the firm’s core midsized clients are some notable international heavyweights, including Liebherr, Ford, Mazda and Fresenius Medical Care. The patent attorneys conduct oppositions, nullity suits and infringement cases stemming from their filing work. They regularly work with the firm’s own lawyers for infringement suits. Furthermore, the patent attorneys have a clear specialisation in mechanics and electronics patents and advise clients mainly from the automotive and medical technology industries. Despite having a strong client base in the auto industry and experience in mobile communications, the connected cars suits have largely passed LSG by. The firm’s presence in pharma patents also has room for improvement, but LSG recently won an experienced patent attorney at associate level from Winter Brandel Fürniss and a new prosecution client in DSM Neutrition.Further Analysis
This patent attorney firm is the third largest and an excellently positioned prosecution outfit in Western Germany alongside Dompatent and Cohausz & Florack. Its highly active teams in Düsseldorf advise a broad technical spectrum of chemistry and biotech patents, as well as the auto industry. Software patents also play a significant role. MHP underscores its regional strength with a small office in Essen. The Frankfurt office is also relatively new and advises a chemicals company in Southwest Germany. MHP’s driving force is in Düsseldorf, however, and boasts a remarkable track record in litigation. The biotech team is highly active in CRISPR oppositions, for example. The firm conducts oppositions across all technical fields for its core clients, having previously filed their patents in most cases. The software and electronics team is principally known for infringement and nullity cases. However, local competitor Cohausz & Florack remains the gold standard for infringement cases in the western half of the country, because its patent attorneys continue to make consistent inroads in the major mobile phone battles.Further Analysis
This Munich firm has a very active filing practice with a broad technical spectrum. The patent attorneys are also highly active in litigation, Huawei being a particular highlight: Mitscherlich represented the Chinese mobile phone manufacturer together with Bird & Bird in the defense against a series of suits from MPEG-LA over video compression. Another important litigation client for the patent attorneys is Nestlé in the years’ long dispute with ECC over coffee capsules. Mechanics patents play a key role here. In patent prosecution, Mitscherlich advises a healthy mix of international corporates such as Bosch, Honda, Huawei and Sony as well as numerous German midsized companies on many technical fields. Only pharma and biotech patents are of slightly less significance. IT, software and electronics are standout fields.Further Analysis
P&P is dominated by patent attorneys and is firmly anchored among automotive clients. It has a particularly strong position in prosecution work for suppliers, including oppositions and nullity suits. The patent attorneys represented Texas Instruments as co-litigator of Audi/VW in the first German connected cars case. Classic auto technology disputes predominate, but the firm has a much greater breadth than its extensive advice to the auto industry would suggest. Consumer goods manufacturers such as Nike and electronics specialists such as Rhode & Schwarz are important clients advised by the well-positioned, midsized prosecution practice with its broad technical range.Further Analysis
The patent attorneys at this Hamburg IP boutique are a firm fixture on the side of notable international companies from the pharma, biotech and chemicals sector. U&S conducts oppositions and patent applications for these clients. The firm is involved in some high-profile proceedings for Monsanto. Clients such as Exxon and Presspart extended their long-standing cooperation with the firm. In infringement proceedings, the patent attorneys were involved in a major case for Medac against Eli Lilly concerning pemetrexed. The headcount has remained stable.Further Analysis
The Munich patent attorney firm has long stood out for its intensive work for Samsung as defendant in infringement cases. The patent attorneys are currently battling a number of NPEs (e.g. Fipa) on behalf of the Korean company, always at the side of external lawyers. On the whole, Z&P has a very active prosecution practice covering a wide range of technolgies. The patent attorneys are also active in nullity suits. In line with the firm’s overall strategy, the patent attorneys are active in litigation beyond the mobile phone sector, for example for a US concern regarding wind energy, for Saint-Gobain concerning painting technology and for Metronic in an opposition over stents.Further Analysis
This patent attorney firm is renowned for its litigation in infringement proceedings over pharma and biosimilar patents. Wittkopp, for example, represented Mylan recently in an economically significant case against Teva concerning a multiple sclerosis medicine. Furthermore, his litigation for core clients Stada/Aliud in the suit against MSD over a cholesterol-lowering drug was a remarkable success. In these proceedings H&W’s chemists and biochemists regularly work with lawyers from large firms such as Bird & Bird and Taylor Wessing. In comparison to competitors, this small Hamburg boutique focuses more on infringement cases and proceedings before the EPO. Expanding its relatively scant filing work is not on the firm’s agenda.Further Analysis
As a patent attorney firm in prosecution and litigation, this Frankfurt outfit has a strong reputation. In addition to oppositions and nullity suits, the patent attorneys broadened their activity in infringement cases at the side of some renowned litigation firms. Dahmen for example, worked with Arnold Ruess to successfully defend a Sanofi patent against Mylan. Besides its litigation work, the firm captured prosecution clients as result of the merger with another Frankfurt outfit the previous year. K&S also managed to step up its work for Asian companies, for example the Japanese mechanical engineering companies Sanden and Fanuc, as well as clients from Taiwan and China. A patent attorney with Chinese roots often brings in such work for the firm.Further Analysis
This Munich-based patent attorney firm is renowned for its in-depth know-how when it comes to pharma, biotech and chemistry patents. The patent attorneys have in particular acquired an excellent reputation for pharmaceuticals proceedings. Prominent partner Best is frequently seen at the side of well-known law firms representing generics manufacturers, e.g. Hexal against Eli Lilly and Ratiopharm against AstraZeneca. Furthermore, not only German clients but also clients from the US and Japan often turn to the team for filing and oppositions.Further Analysis
This firm consistently racks up a high number of patent applications and last year the patent attorneys also attracted attention at the German courts for the first time for representing VW and Audi in the first big case over connected cars. The litigation for VW marked a real coup for the firm in major infringement cases. After being settled VJP has not been involved in similar cases this year. The firm began to step up its litigation with its mixed practice a while ago. Some of its patent attorneys are active in oppositions and nullity suits, e.g. for a German pharma concern. The small lawyer team has been active on cases for the NPE NMS as well as a shutter manufacturer. The firm is known for the technical breadth of its prosecution work. Its strength in electrical engineering and the auto industry, its excellent ties to Asia (VJP has its own offices in Singapore and Taiwan) and the Düsseldorf office all put the firm in good stead to land more big cases. This could be further improved if VJP were to establish litigators in Düsseldorf.Further Analysis
Since its inception in early 2017, this small Munich patent attorney outfit has become a serious contender in litigation. One focus lies on mechanical engineering, often on the interface with digital technology and IT. Clients and competitors alike praise the experienced patent attorneys, which regularly appear at the side of law firms in infringement cases, e.g. for core client HTC concerning mobile communications and lighting technology for smartphones. In both litigation and prosecution work, the firm takes a distinct international approach, with clients not only from Europe from around the globe. Canadian medical technology provider, Neovasc Tiara, for example, instructed the firm for entitlement and nullity actions, as well as patent applications.Further Analysis
This Munich patent attorney firm is known for litigation concerning pharma and chemicals patents. The team conducts many oppositions and nullity suits for core clients, and regular infringement cases with external lawyers, e.g. Klaka. The firm’s best-known client is SRAM in mechanics; WW has represented the company for many years against Shimano concerning innovative bicycle components. Now the firm files patents for SRAM as well. The medium-sized filing practice also advises many international clients. The client list increasingly includes startups and midsized companies. Some of the team’s clients in engineering are paving the way towards more AI patents, e.g. a manufacturer of eye-tracking systems.Further Analysis
The patent attorneys at this Stuttgart IP boutique are frequently active in proceedings. On behalf of Diazyme, for example, the team managed to destroy two patents belonging to competitor Brahms in the dispute with Diasys. The patents protected in-vitro test kits for diagnosing blood poisoning. In addition, competitors praise the team for its prosecution work. The patent attorneys advise a good deal more international corporates than other outfits in the region. The core client list includes heavyweights such as Philipps and Kawasaki.Further Analysis
The selection of law firms in the above table reflects the research of the editorial staff at JUVE and is based on interviews with clients, lawyers and academics. It remains a subjective view and implies no disparagement of any firm not mentioned here but which is nevertheless active in this field. The firms are alphabetically listed within the groups.