Litigation

Umfassende Beratung

Mit Standorten in Deutschland und dem Vereinigten Königreich berät
EIP Legal Sie in allen Bereichen des
IP‑Rechts.\n

Wir bieten unseren Mandanten Beratungsexpertise über das gesamte IP‑Spektrum (Patent‑, Marken‑, Design‑, Urheber‑ und Wettbewerbsrecht).

Wir beraten Sie in allen Phasen streitiger IP‑Auseinandersetzungen und vertreten Sie vor allen ordentlichen Gerichten. Zudem unterstützen wir Sie bei der Anmeldung von Schutzrechten, der Bewertung und Optimierung Ihres IP‑Portfolios sowie bei der Gestaltung und Verhandlung von IP‑Verträgen.

Eingespieltes Team

Als ausgewiesene Experten im IP‑Recht bieten wir unseren
Mandanten zielfokussierte Beratung.

Wir verfügen über Prozesserfahrung in sämtlichen Instanzen und vereinen Spezialwissen mit wirtschaftlichem Verständnis. Als rechtlich und technisch versierte Experten blicken wir über den Tellerrand hinaus und erarbeiten für unsere Mandanten praxisnahe und ökonomische Lösungen.

Strategische Standorte

London und Düsseldorf - Wir sind an den wichtigsten europäischen
IP‑Gerichtsstandorten vertreten.

Durch unser grenzüberschreitendes Team sind wir in der Lage, die jeweiligen Vorzüge der deutschen bzw. englischen Gerichtsverfahren insbesondere bei Patentstreitigkeiten für unsere Mandanten maximal auszuspielen und so optimale Ergebnisse mit Bedeutung für den europäischen Markt zu erzielen.

-

Globale Prozessführung

Wir haben umfassende Expertise in der Koordination von multinational geführten Patentstreitigkeiten.

Durch eingespielte Kooperationen und langjährige Erfahrung haben wir die nationalen Besonderheiten von grenzüberschreitenden Patentstreitigkeiten im Blick und können eine effektive und ökonomisch sinnvolle Prozessführung gewährleisten.

Litigation Team

Alex Morgan

Managing Associate

Solicitor

Andrew Sharples

Partner

UK and European Patent Attorney, Solicitor

Angela Jack

Managing Associate

Employed Barrister

Azadeh Vahdat

Associate

Foreign Qualified Lawyer

Catherine Howell

Senior Associate

Solicitor

Christof Höhne

Partner

Attorney-at-law

Dimitri Kosenko

Senior Associate

Attorney-at-law

Ellen Keenan-O'Malley

Senior Associate

Solicitor

Emily Atherton

Associate

Solicitor

Eugene Chan

Trainee Solicitor

Florian Schmidt-Bogatzky

Partner

Attorney-at-law

Gary Moss

Chairman

Solicitor

Hebah Berhan

Trainee Solicitor

Isabelle Schaller

Managing Associate

Attorney-at-law

Jack Dickerson

Senior Associate

Solicitor

Joanne Welch

Managing Associate

Patent Attorney Litigator

Kathleen Fox Murphy

Partner

Solicitor

Liam Rhodes

Associate

Solicitor

Liz McAuliffe

Senior Associate

Solicitor

Mark Lubbock

Partner

Solicitor

Maximilian Häger

Associate

Attorney-at-law

Myra Sae-Heng

Senior Associate

Solicitor

Owen Waugh

Associate

Solicitor

Rachel Bunn

Of Counsel

Solicitor

Robert Lundie Smith

Partner

Solicitor

Schi-Hwa Chae

Associate

Attorney-at-law

Sebastian Fuchs

Managing Associate

Attorney-at-law

Sunny Bansal

Managing Associate

UK and European Patent Attorney

Tom Brazier

Partner

Solicitor

Tom Leigh

Trainee Solicitor

Practice areas

Patentstreitverfahren

Nationale und internationale Patentstreitverfahren aus einer Hand.

Patentstreitverfahren sind in der Regel komplex und erfordern neben der rechtlichen und technischen Expertise eine gute Organisation und die richtige Strategie.

Unser internationales Team besteht aus erfahrenen deutschen und englischen Rechts- sowie englischen Patentanwälten. Neben umfangreicher grenzüberschreitender rechtlicher Erfahrung bieten wir somit auch technische Expertise, die wir gezielt für unsere Mandanten nutzen. Zudem sind wir in Deutschland durch langjährige Zusammenarbeit gut vernetzt und haben Zugriff auf exzellente Patentanwälte, die wir je nach technischem Gebiet und den Erfordernissen des Falles gezielt hinzuziehen. Hierdurch können wir für unsere Mandanten maßgeschneidert das beste Team für den konkreten Fall zusammenstellen.

Markenschutz und Wettbewerb

Marken sind ein Schlüsselfaktor für den Erfolg Ihres Unternehmens mit nicht zu unterschätzender Bedeutung. Sie stehen für die Qualität und Herkunft Ihrer Produkte und Dienstleistungen und schützen ihre Einzigartigkeit.

Wir wissen worauf es ankommt und helfen Ihnen dabei sich umfassend zu schützen.

Von der Kreation Ihrer Marke, ihrem Schutz bis hin zur Verteidigung bei Markenverletzungen, Kennzeichenmissbrauch und unlauterem Wettbewerb: Wir sind Ihr Partner in jeder Phase Ihrer Markenstrategie und stehen Ihnen jederzeit mit Rat und Tat zur Seite.

Standards und FRAND/RAND

Die Durchsetzung von standardessentiellen Patenten, wie auch die Verteidigung in entsprechenden Prozessen ist ein hochspezieller Nischenbereich des Patentrechts mit kartellrechtlichen Implikationen.

Die Beratung und Vertretung in diesem Bereich setzt neben einschlägigem Wissen um den Umfang der Standardabdeckung voraus, den parallelen Anforderungen einer Lizenzierung zu FRAND/RAND (engl.: fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory") Bedingungen gerecht zu werden. Hierbei ist insbesondere Erfahrung in der außergerichtlichen Korrespondenz und bei der Verhandlung entsprechender Lizenzverträge erforderlich.

EIP Legal hat umfassende praktische Erfahrung in standardessentiellen Streitverfahren mit FRAND Implikationen und vertritt aktuell Patentinhaber in diesem Bereich in Deutschland und England. Besonders hervorzuheben ist das durch EIP Legal erstrittene wegweisende Grundsatzurteil vor dem High Court of England & Wales in dem Verfahrenskomplex Unwired Planet ([2017]EW HC 711 (pat)), in welchem festgestellt wurde, dass die Patentinhaberin ihren FRAND Verpflichtungen entsprochen hat und in welchem sich ein europäisches Gericht erstmals zu der Bestimmung einer FRAND-Lizenz ausdrücklich geäußert hat.

Urheberrecht

Wir unterstützen Unternehmen und Kreative und begleiten Schaffensprozesse von Anfang an.

Wir beraten Sie bereits vor der Schöpfung Ihres Werkes mit Blick auf die Schutzvoraussetzungen, flankierende Schutzmöglichkeiten durch Marken, Designs und ggf. Patente, sowie Ihre Urheberpersönlichkeits- und Verwertungsrechte.

Wir entwerfen und gestalten Ihre Nutzungs- und Lizenzverträge und führen für Sie Vertragsverhandlungen. Wenn Ihre Urheberrechte verletzt wurden, kümmern wir uns um die Durchsetzung Ihrer Ansprüche.

Darüber hinaus vertreten wir Sie sowohl außergerichtlich als auch gerichtlich bei persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzenden Äußerungen und der Verletzung des Rechts am eigenen Bild.

Unsere Kanzlei engagiert sich verstärkt im kreativen Bereich und ist stolz darauf, in London eine enge Verbindung mit Europas größter Universität für Kunst und Design, der University of the Arts, zu pflegen. Dort sponsern wir Ausstellungsräume und begleiten Absolventen durch eigene Mentorenprogramme. EIP hat zudem mit den Chicago Lawyers of the Creative Arts zusammen gearbeitet und bietet in diesem Rahmen Unterstützung bei amerikanischen und europäischen urheberrechtlichen Auseinandersetzungen in der Film- und Musikbranche an.

Unsere Anwälte bieten zudem pro-bono IP-Beratung an und halten Vorträge und Seminare u.a. zum Thema "Urheberrecht für Urheber".

Ergänzende Schutzzertifikate

Ergänzende Schutzzertifikate – ein komplexes Thema betreffend die Verlängerung der Schutzdauer von Patenten für Arznei- oder Pflanzenschutzmittel.

Das europaweit einheitlich durch Verordnungen geregelte Recht der ergänzenden Schutzzertifikate wirft in seiner praktischen Anwendung umfangreiche Fragestellungen auf, die zu zahlreichen Vorlageentscheidungen des Europäischen Gerichtshofs geführt haben. Trotz vieler ergangener Entscheidungen entstehen immer wieder neue Fragestellungen, deren Beantwortung maßgeblich für die strategische Positionierung von Pharmaunternehmen ist.

Wir sind versiert im Umgang mit Rechtsstreitigkeiten bezüglich ergänzender Schutzzertifikate und beraten Mandanten regelmäßig hierzu.

Designrecht

Wir beraten einzelne Designer und Unternehmen bei Designrechtsverletzungen.

Das Design eines Produktes ist immer häufiger der bestimmende Faktor für seine Marktmacht. Es ist ein maßgeblicher Vermögenswert für jeden Designer oder Hersteller.

Ein Schlüsselaspekt bei der Durchsetzung oder Verteidigung eines Designs ist die Identifikation des Formschatzes, mit dem das angegriffene Design verglichen werden soll. Hier arbeiten wir eng mit unseren Europäischen Designanwälten in London zusammen und nutzen deren Ressourcen. Ein Umstand, den Sie so bei anderen Kanzleien nicht finden werden. Er erlaubt uns, die Erfolgschancen eines Verletzungsvorwurfs (oder einer Verteidigung dagegen) schnell und zutreffend einzuschätzen und Sie bezüglich der richtigen Strategie kompetent zu beraten.

Seit die online Bewerbung von Produkten und Designportfolios im digitalen Zeitalter Gang und Gäbe ist, hat dies zu einem (weltweiten) Anstieg von Verletzungen geführt. Denn dank des Internets ist es ein Leichtes geworden, geschützte Werke aufzufinden und zu kopieren. Das daraus resultierende grenzüberschreitende Wesen vieler design-basierter Verletzungen macht die Durchsetzung von Designrechten zu einer komplexen Aufgabe. Insbesondere für den einzelnen Designer und kleine und mittelständische Unternehmen.

Wir beraten Sie bei allen Fragen der Verletzung von Designrechten, auch im Zusammenhang mit der Problematik der Einfuhr verletzender Produkte von außerhalb der EU.

Betriebs- und Geschäftsgeheimnisse

Wir bieten fachkundige Beratung mit dem notwendigen Fingerspitzengefühl bei unberechtigtem Gebrauch von Betriebs- und Geschäftsgeheimnissen.

The formalities involved in any form of litigation will prove to be a distraction from a party's day to day operations – an even greater distraction, and burden, in cases involving more than one jurisdiction. Successful management requires an understanding of different court rules and procedures and the administrative burden of managing multiple law firms and the associated co-ordination of cases. The issues involved are particularly prevalent in pan-European litigation, where an overarching understanding of European law may also be required.

Through its offices in the UK, US and Germany, EIP can offer its clients litigation services in three key IP jurisdictions. Through the management experience of its litigation team (both private practice and in-house) the firm can also shoulder a wider burden for its clients by managing litigation teams in other jurisdictions.

Choosing the 'right' jurisdictions for a particular case can be a key strategy decision in itself. Our litigation team's experience of multijurisdictional litigation and knowledge of the interplay between different national procedures puts EIP in a prime position to advise on these issues.

Design-Rechte

Working with EIP's European Design Attorneys to advise individual designers and companies on design right infringement.

The design of a product is more often than not a key driver in determining its market power. It is a key asset for any designer or manufacturer.

However, in the digital age the promotion of products and design portfolios online is commonplace and has led to an increase in infringement (globally) due to the ease of identifying and copying works. The resultant cross border nature of many design-based infringements turns enforcement of design rights into a complex task, particularly for the individual designer and for SMEs.

EIP’s litigators regularly advise individual designers and companies on matters of design right infringement, including in relation to wider issues arising out of an infringement stemming from importation of infringing products from outside of the EU.

EIP’s litigators are equally comfortable advising designers and companies facing allegations of design right infringement. One key aspect of any design enforcement or defence is the identification of the design corpus with which to compare the design being asserted (to assess its validity). The ability of EIP’s litigators to interface with our in-house European Design Attorneys provides EIP Legal with access to a significant resource not found in traditional practices allowing for a quick and robust assessment of issues relating to validity and also the freedom of the nominal designer the purposes of assessing infringement (or defences thereto).

Litigation Updates

Preserving the strict deadline of urgency in patent preliminary injunction proceedings

A discussion of:

(German language source: link)

The urgency deadline (which is a deadline set by case law and not by statutory law) remains a crucial aspect that patent holders must keep in mind when seeking a preliminary injunction before German courts. The forementioned German courts had to deal particularly with the question whether it is possible that the deadline for determining the urgency recommences in certain situations.

The decisions share the common principle that once an applicant has sufficient knowledge of the possible infringement and gathered all necessary prima facie evidence to file an application with a reasonable chance of success, it has a month to file a preliminary injunction application.

The regional courts have in common that the urgency period begins without considering the existence of a (positive) decision in validity proceedings. The assessment of legal validity does not affect the begin of the urgency deadline. A positive validity decision is not mandatory for obtaining a preliminary injunction. Hence, there are cases where an application for an injunction is successful even without a (positive) decision on validity. In these cases, the patent holder cannot wait indefinitely, and the application would no longer be considered urgent. However, the urgency deadline may restart if a decision confirming the validity of the patent is handed down or if new judgements affect the prevailing jurisdiction and therefore the prospects of success of a preliminary injunction. This is appropriate, as patent holders would otherwise be forced to file preliminary injunctions prematurely and would not be able to file a new application after an unsuccessful attempt.

As the Regional Court of Düsseldorf does not presume the validity of a granted patent by default, it generally sets a new urgency deadline in motion when the patent proprietor waited for the decision in the validity proceedings. According to this case law, an application for a preliminary injunction can be (re)filed if a decision confirming the validity is issued. If the applicant decides to file an application for a preliminary injunction prior to the issuance of a validity decision, he must overcome the strict requirements for a positive prognosis decision. In other words, the applicant must convince the court that the patent is likely to be upheld in (hypothetical) validity proceedings.

It does not follow from the decision of the Munich I Regional Court that a renewed application for a preliminary injunction after a positive validity decision would have to be rejected for lack of urgency. This decision would significantly increase the threshold for the potential infringer to plead against the validity presumption. Hence one can assume that such a decision also sets off a new urgency deadline according to the case law of the Munich I Regional Court.

In terms of the expressed doubts by the Munich I Regional Court regarding the compliance of this "rigid" deadline regime with European law, it remains to be seen whether there will be a change of case law in the future. For the time being, it can be expected that judges of German local chambers of the UPC will apply the recent approach of the national courts when deciding on preliminary injunction

Smoke Without Fire - British American Tobacco’s “heat not burn” products found not to infringe two of Philip Morris International’s patents

Nicoventures Trading Limited v Philip Morris Products SA & Anor [2023] EWHC 854 (Pat)

Another judgment has recently been handed down in the ongoing global dispute between tobacco giants British American Tobacco (“BAT”) and Philip Morris International (“PMI”) over “heat not burn” alternatives to cigarettes. The judge has upheld the validity of two of PMI’s patents but found that they were not infringed by BAT.

Background

BAT and PMI are involved in litigation across the globe relating to heat not burn alternative tobacco products. Previous decisions in the UK have invalidated heat not burn patents owned by both BAT and PMI. In this trial BAT were seeking revocation of PMI’s patents EP (UK) 3266323 (“EP’323”) and EP 3741225 (“EP’225”) and PMI were alleging that BAT’s “glo” tobacco heating products infringed EP’323 but had dropped allegations of infringement in respect of EP’225. In parallel proceedings a German regional appeal court has recently ruled that BAT does not infringe the German designation of EP’323.

Heat not burn alternative tobacco products have been developed by tobacco companies such as BAT or PMI to produce nicotine products which contain fewer of the unwanted by products contained in cigarette smoke. This is because the temperatures generated by heat not burn products are lower than those generated by conventional tobacco products such as cigarettes. Various technologies, based on either electrical or chemical heating, have been developed since the 1980s, however, the early products were not commercial successes.

BAT’s glo products

BAT’s glo products are a variety of tobacco heating devices which are sold by BAT in the UK, whilst there are a variety of devices it was agreed between the parties that the differences between the devices did not matter. The glo products consist of various components but the point that mattered for this judgment is that the glo products have two independently controllable heating coils wrapped around a single steel tube which heats the tobacco.

PMI’s patents

PMI’s patents covered heat not burn electronic devices containing various elements. The main element focussed on in this case was the requirement in the patents for two separate heating elements, which allows the nicotine product, to be heated at different times to generate an aerosol. This was said to be an advantage of the patents as there would be greater control of the heating of the nicotine and less need to reheat the aerosol generated. This would lead to a better experience as reheated aerosol is said to taste stale. The judge found that it was a part of the claims of the patents that the multiple heating elements act separately from each other so that different parts of the heating substrate could be heated to different temperatures. Given that heat will transfer through any device the question of whether two heating elements are really acting separately was found by the judge to be a question of fact and degree and that there was not necessarily a clear dividing line.

Invalidity

BAT alleged that PMI’s patents were invalid for both added matter and obviousness.

The judge first addresses the added matter allegations which were that claims in PMI’s patents related to features from the patent’s disclosure which were stripped of context and not generally applicable to the invention and thus added new information about the invention. BAT’s argument was that as the patent application disclosed heat not burn devices with two or more heating elements which did not cover the entirety of the heated substrate, a claim requiring two or more elements that fully cover the entire heated substrate was impermissible. The judge rejects this argument in short order as he finds that the patent application did disclose a system where the entire substrate was covered by two heating elements, albeit it permitted further heating elements to be inserted between the two heating elements.

The judge then later addresses BAT’s argument that the patents were obvious over a patent application filed by a German company in 1998. This prior art was found by the judge to suggest that the way to improve heat not burn products over previous devices was to arrange the heating substrate as close as possible by the heat source by using a single conductive graphite loaded sheath within the nicotine substrate, rather than in the device. The judge then found that it was not obvious to move from a single heating element in the nicotine substrate itself to multiple different heating elements in the heat not burn device itself.

Infringement

The judge found that despite the device having two independently controllable heating coils, the single steel tube, which the heating coils were wrapped around, acted as a single heating element and so the glo products do not infringe EP’323 as the glo products do not have a “first heating element” and a “second heating element” as required by the claims. This decision by the judge is consistent with the approach of the German regional appeal court which found that EP’323 required two separate heating elements.

Takeaway point

The High Court and the German regional appeal court have both come to the same slightly counterintuitive conclusion that BMI ‘s glo heat not burn tobacco products do not infringe PMI’s patents as they do not have a first and second heating element as required by the patent despite containing two separate heating coils. This is a reminder, as the UK judge says, that in patent cases whether a device infringes is often “a matter of fact and degree”, and that the components in any particular device may not neatly align with those in the claims of a patent.

European Commission Proposals on Data Exclusivity and the Bolar Exemption

On 26 April, the European Commission published proposed legislation (specifically a new Regulation and a new Directive) aimed at reforming EU legislation in relation to pharmaceuticals. These proposals, if adopted, will affect pharmaceutical regulation in a number of ways. In relation to IP specifically, they will affect the periods of data exclusivity and bolar exemptions.

Data Exclusivity

Under the EU’s current framework, a newly authorised pharmaceutical will benefit from 8 years of data exclusivity and 2 years of market exclusivity, i.e. “the 8+2 regime”. The Commission is proposing to adjust this to a basic 6+2 regime, by reducing the period of data exclusivity by two years. However, there would be the possibility to extend this by up to four additional years, if certain criteria are met. Specifically:

There are also proposed changes to the regime in relation to orphan drugs:

Also in relation to the orphan medicines regime, the two years additional market exclusivity on completion of a paediatric investigation plan is abolished, but a six month SPC extension would be available, in line with the paediatric extension currently available for non-orphan drugs.

Data exclusivity is also proposed to be used as an incentive to encourage new antibiotics. In return for seeking authorisation for a "priority antimicrobial", a transferable data exclusivity voucher will be awarded. This can be used to extend data protection of a product for 12 months. That product could be the priority antimicrobial but need not be; instead the voucher could be used for another product, provided that product is within the first four years of data protection. The voucher would also be transferrable for use by another company.

Harmonised EU Bolar exemption

Although EU law makes provision for bolar exemptions to apply under national patent law, EU member states have applied this exemption differently. The Commission has therefore sought to harmonise the position. The proposal to do so would mean that a patent or SPC would not be infringed by activities conducted to generate data for an application for:

(i) a marketing authorisation of generic, biosimilar, hybrid or bio-hybrid medicinal products, and for subsequent variations;

(ii) health technology assessments (as they are defined in Regulation (EU) 2021/2282);

(iii) pricing and reimbursement.

The activities would have to be done exclusively for these purposes, but provided that is so, the exemption would apply to the submission of the application for a marketing authorisation as well as activities by third party suppliers and service providers.

This approach clarifies that wider regulatory processes, such as pricing, benefit from the exemption, and the fact that activities by third parties are also specifically exempted does clarify a point that was previously unclear. However, the proposal as drafted would apply not only to patents covering the medicinal product for which data is being generated, but potentially any patent used in the generation of the data, for example patents relating to research tools and devices. It is by no means clear if this was intentional (or even whether such an exemption would be compliant with TRIPS). This may be a point which the proposal is amended during the legislative process.

These proposals will now move to be considered by the European Parliament and Council before they can pass into law.

The UK National Semiconductor Strategy: a first glance

The UK Government has released its National Semiconductor Strategy. The Strategy sets out the UK Government’s vision for the semiconductor industry in the UK, and details funding and other initiatives that it plans to put in place to support the sector. It also details how the UK can be more resilient to supply chains shocks and how the UK will deal with threats to national security that arise from semiconductor technology.

So, what does the Strategy include?

The Vision

The Strategy’s overarching vision focuses on three of the UK’s main strengths. These are R&D, design and IP and compound semiconductors. There are no surprises here. The UK already has an excellent university-based research base with a strong track-record in spinning out successful semiconductor companies. Design and IP refers to design companies like Arm and Imagination, two huge success stories, and the many smaller companies that follow in their steps. The compound semiconductor cluster in South Wales is well known to be world-leading in it’s R&D in the compound space. On the other hand the Strategy does not address manufacturing, acknowledging that the UK is not going to compete with Taiwan, China the US or even Europe when it comes to silicon-based semiconductor production. Again, no surprises here.

The Strategy is split into three core areas, which are: growing the UK sector; safeguarding the UK against supply chain disruption and protecting the UK against security. There are parallels here with other industrial policies on semiconductors. For example, the EU CHIPs Act includes provisions relating to European R&D and supply chain monitoring in Europe.

Growing the UK sector

The Government has promised up to £200M for the sector over the next three yea