JUVE Comment

One year after rebuilding the lawyer side of its mixed practice, Eisenführ Speiser’s powerful team is making an impression. Numerous clients are entrusting it with extensive cases, for example regular client EIS concerning pressure-wave massagers, and Bego concerning dental technology. Another example is new client Zhuhai CosMX Battery in a case concerning the electrolyte composition of batteries for smartphones and laptops.

The firm rebuilt its legal team around Michael Schneider and Sönke Scheltz by hiring Philipp Neels, Philipp Rastemborski and Florian Henke. This not only reinforced support for existing clients but also deepened cross-border and interdisciplinary cooperation. The team also managed to maintain a portion of the work for Philips and Sisvel despite the departure of the two prominent Hamburg-based litigation partners the previous year – mainly thanks to the strong ties of the patent attorneys in these cases.

The prosecution practice is developing dynamically, as various clients are filing patents for AI applications. The firm is also significantly expanding its work for regular clients such as Edwards Lifesciences, Symrise and ZF Friedrichshafen.

Following the successful integration of the lawyers and the new momentum this has given to interoffice collaboration, Eisenführ Speiser now has the confidence to expand its life sciences practice, which is still small compared to its other technical practices. The established chemicals team, with regular clients such as BASF, has been significantly strengthened by the addition of a five-strong life sciences team around partners Martin Nohlen and André Guder from Uexküll & Stolberg. The team includes both experienced partners and younger staff, thus reinforcing the age structure and manpower. It also brings contacts to clients such as US chemicals group Exxon Mobil, US cosmetics company Mary Kay, as well as Beiersdorf, Boehringer Ingelheim and Ferring. Now Eisenführ Speiser must prove, for the second year in a row, that it can accomplish a major internal integration.

European set-up

Eisenführ tackled the UPC with a proven track record. Clients from all sectors trust the firm with their cases. For example, the firm’s mixed team is conducting several proceedings for new client Headwater Research and regular client BEGO Medical regarding 3D printers. It is also representing for Edwards Lifesciences together with other law firms in a major case. In addition, the firm’s patent attorneys are working on cases handled by other lawyers at other firms, such as Bardehle Pagenberg in the dispute between Philips and Belkin.

The firm is currently working in many different constellations for UPC cases, thus reflecting both the different needs of its clients and the flexibility of the firm. However, this also shows the practice is in a constant state of competition at the UPC, because only some clients rely on the mixed team exclusively.

Strengths

Litigation for patent holders (including various NPEs) in mobile communications, including SEPs and FRAND, as well as mechanics, electronics and medical devices.

Recommended individuals

Sönke Scheltz (“responds well to requirements”, client), Michael Schneider; patent attorneys: Jochen Ehlers (“seasoned patent attorney with exceptional legal knowledge”, client), Klaus Göken, Joachim von Oppen, Manuel Söldenwagner (“strong in oral hearings, knows exactly how the EPO Opposition Division ticks”, competitor)

Team

8 lawyers, 52 patent attorneys

Partner moves

Martin Nohlen, André Guder (both from Uexküll & Stolberg)

Clients

Litigation: Zhuhai CosMX Battery Ningde Amperex over smartphone and laptop batteries; EIS against Lelo Europe over pressure wave massagers; Bego Medical against S&S Scheftner over dental technology; Symrise (co-defendant of various discount supermarkets) against Stada over suncream patent; Access Advance pool members against TCL and Vestel over video coding; Philips against competitors over household goods; Acer against Ningde Amperex over mobile phone and laptop batteries; Bego against CADSpeed over dental technology; Human Care against Beka Hospitec over lifting apparatus for patients; Joyson Safety Systems against Autoliv over belt retractor for cars.