Experts in complex patent battles:
our track record stretches back over 75 years.

Patent Litigation

rospatt is sited in Europe’s two most important locations for infringement proceedings in the field of industrial property rights. Approximately half of all the patent-infringement disputes in Europe are heard in Düsseldorf. Mannheim and Munich are becoming increasingly important, too.

Our day-to-day practice includes infringement disputes, opposition, nullity and cancellation proceedings, and entitlement disputes. We cover all areas of science and technology. Current clients include companies in the fields of aircraft manufacturing, aeronautics, biotechnology, chemistry, electrical equipment, machine tools and mechanical engineering, materials, medical technology, optics, pharmaceuticals, process engineering, satellite technology, semiconductor and computer technology, and mobile telecommunications.

Long-standing contacts with the best patent and IP attorneys in other countries ensure optimum litigation strategies for cross-border cases. Behind the scenes, rospatt coordinates proceedings while you and your personal contact assemble your case. 

Related Cases

  • AIM Sport Vision v Supponor (banner advertisement in live sports events; UPC case)
  • AMO (Johnson & Johnson) v Alcon (laser eye surgery)
  • ArcelorMittal v Tata Steel (sheet metal)
  • Apple v Samsung Electronics (telecommunication, UI design)
  • Biogen v misc. generics (MS treatment)
  • Degussa v EMS (pipe coatings)
  • Draeger v Maquet (ventilators)
  • Dyson v Samsung Electronics (vacuum cleaners)
  • Illumina v BGI/MGI (DNA sequencing)
  • Janssen (Johnson & Johnson) v Ratiopharm (Itraconazol)
  • Nichia v Seoul Semiconductors (LED manufacturing processes)
  • Samsung Electronics v. Ericsson (telcommunication, chip design, SEP/FRAND)
  • Siemens v Seagate (HDD read heads)
  • Swedish Biofuels v BP Europe (fuel)

Related Landmark Decisions

Aminopyridin — 2023 Mitt 132
The Federal Supreme Court sets out the procedural relationship between nullity actions before the Federal Patent Court on the one hand and oppositions before the EPO on the other. This was necessary because a nullity action is inadmissible according to Sec. 81 (2) German Patent Act as long as an opposition against the same patent is still pending.

Faserstoffbahn (fibrous web) — BGH 2023 GRUR 1184
The Federal Supreme Court clarified that the right of first use extends to newer, modified products if the modification of the technical properties was a natural modification of the pre-used product for the skilled person.

Verbundelement (Composite Element) — BGH 2022, 1129
The Federal Supreme Court calls for a distinction in claim interpretation when the patent-in-suit delimits itself from a cited prior art document in the specification. This can lead to a limitation of the scope of protection only when it is clear to which specific embodiment the delimitation refers.

Übertragungsleistungssteuerungsverfahren (Transmission Power Control Method) – BGH 2022 GRUR 813
In this decision, the Federal Supreme Court specified the requirements that apply with regard to a sufficient disclosure of the invention.

Sicherheit von Transaktionen zwischen informationsverarbeitenden Systemen (safety of transactions between data processing systems) – BGH 2020 MMR 233
In these nullity appeal proceedings, it was necessary to determine which solution was obvious to the skilled person when combining two documents, if different approaches to increasing the security of transactions were proposed in each of the two documents. The question was whether the skilled person would have replaced one solution with the other, or would have combined them.

Cer-Zirkonium-Mischoxid I + II (cerium zirconium mixed oxides) – BGH 2019 GRUR 713 and 718
In two nullity proceedings concerning patents in the field of compositions which serve as raw material for 3‑way-catalysts the Federal Supreme Court had to decide on miscellaneous fundamental questions concerning enablement when a range of values open on one side was claimed, in reference to examples of the prior art which had been re-worked by the claimant.

Beschichtungsverfahren (Coating process) – BGH 2016 GRUR 1257
This decision developed the case law on benefits of use in cases of joint inventorship. If co-inventors are jointly entitled to an invention, a single co-inventor cannot be justified in applying for a patent in his own name. In such an event, the other co-inventor’s right to the invention as an absolute right is harmed. The neglected co-inventor may claim damages including a compensation for enjoyed benefits of use.

PATENT LITIGATION BEFORE THE UPC

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) is the first international forum for patent litigation. It offers new opportunities for the resolution of patent disputes. 

All partners of rospatt are registered representatives before the UPC. Drawing on our broadly positioned patent law experience, we assemble powerful teams for each of our clients’ UPC proceedings.

With its long tradition of patent litigation, Germany is the only member state of the UPC to host four Local Divisions (Duesseldorf, Mannheim, Munich and Hamburg) and one branch of the Central Division (Munich). We expect Germany to establish itself as a major forum for UPC litigation, and this expectation has been fully confirmed in the course of the first year of the UPC’s existence.

ROSPATT INFORMS ABOUT THE UPC

With offices in Düsseldorf and Mannheim, rospatt is located not only geographically at the heart of the new European patent system. The powerful and experienced team at rospatt is also well-equipped, in terms of both technical competence and staff, to represent your company in legal disputes before the UPC.

PATENT LITIGATION – CJEU REFERRALS 

rospatt has been involved in a number of the rare cases where questions in patent disputes are relayed to the CJEU for interpretation of EU law.

Related Cases

  • GAT v LuK (cross-border jurisdiction under the Brussels Convention)
  • Sanofi v Actavis (SPC – combination drug — Irbesartan)