German market in turmoil

Since its launch more than two years ago, the Unified Patent Court has developed into a significant forum for patent disputes in Europe. At the same time, the trend of declining case numbers at national courts has continued. The seven German courts specialising in patents recorded 551 new patent lawsuits in 2024 – a record low and an 8.2% decline compared to the previous year. In the previous year, the decline had been over 23%.

The German patent chambers remain an important venue for commercially significant disputes. For example, Bayer and Regeneron are figting with generic manufacturers over the ophthalmic drug Eylea at the Munich Regional Court, and Via LA brought its suits against Microsoft and Amazon over HEVC patents to the Regional Court Düsseldorf.

Nevertheless, patent proceedings at national courts have been declining for years, and there are no signs of a trend reversal in 2025. Since the opening of the UPC, this trend has even accelerated. As a result, courts have closed individual patent chambers, for example in Mannheim or at the second instance court in Düsseldorf.

The new situation is putting law firms under considerable pressure. The German market leaders are endeavouring to stabilise their position nationally and transfer it to the UPC business. Some German law firms have also been at the forefront within the European context. However, outfits that have not yet been able to secure UPC work from their clients are coming under pressure as they are losing important business due to the falling number of national patent disputes.

Good start foreseeable

The strong start made by German patent teams at the UPC is hardly surprising, as Germany positioned itself as a central location for the UPC from the very beginning. With a strong team of experienced German patent judges, the divisions in Düsseldorf, Hamburg, Mannheim, and Munich attracted the most cases from the outset. Most recently, actions at the five German UPC divisions accounted for around 70 per cent of the total volume of proceedings.

In the first two years of the UPC, clients also tended to instruct their regular advisers who had previously assisted them in national proceedings. In the country with the traditionally highest number of patent disputes in Europe, local law firms were therefore at an advantage. Nevertheless, they all had to prove themselves anew at the UPC.

Difficult balancing act

The most active law firms included those that were already market leaders in Germany, regardless of their set-up. Above all, Bardehle Pagenberg and Kather Augenstein appear particularly frequently on the claimant side in proceedings that are conducted in parallel at the UPC and at national German courts. For example, in Amgen vs Sanofi over a cholesterol-lowering drug, or Ona Patents vs Google over location-positioning technology in smartphones.

Like Arnold Ruess, Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner, and Rospatt, Bardehle Pagenberg and Kather Augenstein proved that national IP boutiques can successfully position themselves at the new court even without international teams. Their teams are also large enough to remain present in national proceedings. As an international mixed IP boutique, Hoyng ROKH Monegier also manages to maintain its position in national patent disputes alongside its UPC work, as demonstrated by its work for BioNTech in the proceedings against CureVac and Moderna.

Some large international law firms in the upper tier also manage the difficult balancing act between UPC and national proceedings. Mixed teams of lawyers and patent attorneys, such as those at Bird & Bird and Hogan Lovells, were just as much in demand as pure lawyer teams at Taylor Wessing and Freshfields.

Stagnation in Germany

In addition to their strong presence before German patent courts, all of the successful UPC law firms had a great deal of experience in parallel national proceedings in various jurisdictions. They often advise their clients both in German cases and parallel disputes concerning other patents on similar technology at the UPC.

The stagnation in the national litigation market is also reflected in the top tier of JUVE Patent’s litigation ranking, where there is little dynamism and the established leaders have been able to defend their position.

At the same time, a few law firms – backed by their success at the UPC – are challenging the market leaders in Germany. The best example of this is Vossius & Partner. Thanks to its successful work at the UPC, which it does in alliance with the leading Dutch law firm Brinkhof, the mixed IP firm initially gained visibility until a partner move halted its development.

Patent attorneys carry more weight nationally

Although it is also possible for patent attorneys to act as sole litigators at the UPC, the traditional set-up of lawyers representing the legal side and consulting patent attorneys for the technical issues has become more firmly established.

Nevertheless, the patent law firms Cohausz & Florack, df-mp and Samson & Partner, for example, have had a strong presence in UPC proceedings from the start, always alongside law firms. JUVE Patent’s patent attorney ranking paints a similar picture that of the litigation firms: Patent firms that were already German market leaders and are regularly active in pan-European proceedings are often also particularly visible at the UPC.

The patent firm Thum & Partner demonstrated a particularly strong presence in proceedings for regular client Edwards Lifesciences against Meril concerning cardiac catheters or for Juul concerning e-cigarette technology.

However, the importance and presence of patent attorneys is still higher in national German proceedings. Some outfits were significantly impacted by the staff moves and decided to dissolve, such as the patent law firm König Szynka Tilmann von Renesse. Whilst a large part of the team around the Düsseldorf partners Gregor König, Dorothea von Renesse and Carla Roth moved to Hoffmann Eitle, Claudia Hertzsch joined Hoyng ROKH Monegier. The Munich team led by Dirk Szynka is going its own way.

Concentration of business

The overall volume of litigation work is shrinking for everyone. Where numerous national teams worked side by side in proceedings that were conducted in parallel in several countries, often only one team is needed at the UPC.

Law firms that conducted UPC proceedings early on and are also strongly positioned before national courts currently have an advantage. Another advantage from the client’s perspective is if they provide large teams of lawyers for the increasingly complex proceedings and give young litigators good development opportunities. Small law firms focusing on individual partners are less and less likely to appeal to clients.

The situation at Klaka illustrates this. Although the firm was represented in a number of UPC cases, it was unable to retain the next generation of partners. By the end of the year, most of the soft IP partners and all three patent partners will have moved to other firms in search of better international positioning and more UPC work. Amongst them are the patent lawyer Constantin Kurtz (to CMS Hasche Sigle), Stefan Eck (to Ampersand) and Wolfgang Götz (to Meissner Bolte).

Challenges are increasingly emerging amongst the established German top dogs. A good client base and legal experience are no longer sufficient to position themselves as representatives for companies at the new court and for national proceedings. It is becoming clear who has found a successful strategy to nagivate the altered litigation landscape and who will fall by the wayside as traditional litigation business disappears and national cases continue to dwindle. Business is decreasing, whilst at the same time German law firms are increasingly competing with entities from other European countries for attractive work.

Willingness to change at its peak

As a result, fee earners are more willing to switch firms. Younger partners in particular, aged between their late 30s and mid-40s with ten to 15 years of professional experience, are considering how best to position themselves at the UPC and acting accordingly. Since the beginning of the year, staff moves have hit an all time high, especially in recent months.

One of the most prominent moves was the founding of the patent litigation boutique Bonabry, for which several partners split off from Preu Bohlig at the beginning of the year.

Another bombshell was the departure of a twelve-strong Munich patent team from Taylor Wessing. The five partners Christian Lederer, Dietrich Kamlah, Anja Lunze, Thomas Pattloch, and Jan Phillip Rektorschek spun off and founded the patent boutique Pentarc. There had not been such a significant move since the founding of Kather Augenstein with a ten-strong team from Preu Bohlig in 2016.

Besides gaining the patent attorney team around Gregor König, there was also significant movement among the litigators at Hoffmann Eitle. The firm lost patent litigators Nils Hölder and Mike Gruber to Carpmaels & Ransford. The British mixed law firm strengthened its German presence in Munich. Hoffmann Eitle then swiftly started rebuilding its litigation practice with Simmons & Simmons partner Thomas Gniadek. For Simmons & Simmons, the move marks another setback following departures in its UK and Dutch patent teams.

The competition never sleeps

At the same time, law firms from abroad are increasingly entering the German market and competing with the long-established outfits. Alongside Carpmaels & Ransford, one of the most prominent examples of this is Powell Gilbert. Vossius & Partner litigator Andreas Kramer opened a German office in Düsseldorf for the British IP boutique.

Simultaneously, Herbert Smith Freehills recently expanded its team with an experienced litigator from EIP. Meanwhile, the mixed law firm Casalonga, which is very active in France, also opened a branch in Düsseldorf with a Fieldfisher team.

The foreign law firms are not only trying to secure UPC business by improving their presence in Germany. Their new German partners will also continue to focus on national litigation and will provide their German competitors with more competition when it comes to recruiting new talent. The arrival of these prominent firms, particularly from the UK, will have a lasting impact on the German market.

US law firms are also showing interest in the European market. In addition to the long-established, renowned patent litigation practice of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner recently expanded its young Munich practice. The firm had only launched it in 2022 with a team led by Jochen Herr from Baker McKenzie. Morgan Lewis has also strengthened its IP team in Munich with a patent lawyer from Baker McKenzie. A Munich-London team is currently representing Acer against Nokia concerning an SEP portfolio licence.

Never-ending story

These development show that the German market is facing major upheaval. One lawyer, who is also looking for a new job, recently told JUVE Patent: “The market has gone crazy.” Another claimed that everyone is talking to each other and “currently reviewing their options”.

At the same time, the UPC is proving to be a springboard for many younger lawyers. Associates and counsel have taken on much more active roles there than in national proceedings. As a result, they are more recognised in the market. Fuelled by their improved presence in UPC cases, more young lawyers than ever are now visible in German patent litigation. JUVE Patent recently honoured five such lawyers as Ones to Watch in German patent litigation.

Not all gold

But there are also doubts. The general economic climate is unstable. In addition, AI applications are increasingly finding their way into patent work – even more drastically for patent attorneys than for lawyers.

It is now becoming clear that the UPC will become the primary patent court in Europe. As a result, lawyers and law firms will have to contend with a further decline in national patent cases, whilst the UPC will not yet be able to compensate for this loss of business. It is likely to lead to a concentration of the market, leaving fewer fee earners to divvy up the European patent litigation business amongst themselves. (Co-author: Mathieu Klos)