Dr. Gabriel Wittmann

📢 Happy birthday UPC. On Saturday, the Unified Patent Court celebrated its first birthday. Since last week JUVE Patent has reported on this event with interviews, opinions and analyses about the first year of the new court. Don't miss anything: - Top 5 most influential #UPC cases - The strategies of top 5 most active firms on the claimant side - The President of the Court of First Instance, Florence Butin, in an interview - Opinion of Christina Schulze on a successful year with some surprises - French patent litigator Pierre Véron looks back on the first UPC year - Opinion of editor Mathieu Klos on the future challenges of the UPC - Top 10 most-read UPC articles in the court's first year And there are many more UPC articles on www.juve-patent.com

19

Thum & Partner as law firm and Bernhard Thum as individual are recommended in Leaders League's Germany ranking for patent prosecution: Germany Best Law Firms for Patent Prosecution: https://lnkd.in/di4QZV8T #IP #intellectualproperty #patents

24

First ever injunction at a local division of the UPC. My key take out (among others): - At the european Unified Patent Court (#UPC), local divisions, injunctions are very much possible and effective. - You can effectively select the countries you decide to protect (even if you exclude the country of the court’s local division). - You can have an injunction based on the validity of an amended patent (full patent was considered invalid but the amended one sufficiently valid to support the injunction). Some of this was expected, but it is good to see it in practice. Protection for patentees. https://lnkd.in/ePhimMqJ (Thanks to Mathieu Klos of JUVE Patent) #patentlaw #unifiedpatentcourt

1

📉 As JUVE Patent analyses the latest statistics from German regional courts, signs point to the UPC luring away patent cases from the national system. While the overall figures have been declining for years, in 2023 German national courts saw their sharpest drop yet. For a closer look, go to JUVE Patent.

41

DABUS UPDATE GERMANY: CAN AI BE NAMED AS AN INVENTOR? BUNDESGERICHTSHOF X ZB 5/22 11 June 2024 The decision of the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) in the case of DABUS concerns the patent application No. 10 2019 128 120.2, filed by Dr. Stephen L. Thaler. The key issue was whether a machine, specifically an artificial intelligence (AI) named DABUS, could be named as an inventor. The court ruled that only natural persons can be designated as inventors according to German patent law (§ 37 Abs. 1 PatG). Despite the involvement of AI in generating the invention, the legal framework requires the identification of a human inventor. Dr. Thaler’s various requests to recognize DABUS as the inventor, either directly or with him as an intermediary, were denied. The court also clarified that the mention of AI in the description does not fulfill the legal requirement of naming a natural person as the inventor. Consequently, the patent application could not proceed with DABUS listed as the inventor. #DABUS #AI

8

In one of the first #infringement cases filed at the #UPC, Franz Kaldewei v Bette, the Düsseldorf Local Division has ordered the first ever permanent #injunction. There is a lot in this decision to be digested but it gives helpful guidance on the tests that are likely to be applied in final #decisions at the UPC. Eden Winlow reviews the facts of this case and looks at #validity, #infringement and prior use! The full article is available for free on the Kluwer Patent Blog.

3

Explicit split: Unified Patent Court’s Mannheim LD elects to impose more restrictive confidentiality regime in Panasonic v. OPPO than Munich There's also a warning that UPC counsel should heed: if your adversary inadvertently files confidential business information in the open, don't share it with your clients (at least not if you can be expected to figure out at first sight that a filing error was made). The fact that Mannheim references a Munich protective order but comes down on the less permissive side is not a bad sign. It's how case law evolves, and at some point the Court of Appeal may resolve such splits. Or maybe the Munich Local Division will deem the Mannheim reasoning persuasive and adopt it going forward. Today's Mannheim protective order was handed down by Presiding Judge (and judge-rapporteur) Dr. Peter Tochtermann. Panasonic is represented by KATHER AUGENSTEIN (counsel of record: Christopher Weber), and OPPO by Dr. Andreas Kramer of VOSSIUS (VOSSIUS & BRINKHOF UPC LITIGATORS), who will now be able to discuss certain confidential business information with OPPO's counsel in the Munich proceedings, Clifford Chance's Dr. Tobias J. Hessel, but the latter will also have to abide by the Mannheim court's more restrictive rules with respect to what is shared with counsel in other jurisdictions (such as the UK). https://lnkd.in/dgwdQsNb

9

#IPReport #PatentLaw This Valentine’s Day, the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe had a gift for lovers of national infringement proceedings. But fans of the UPC also got something: proof that the UPC is not only unified, but also unique. This IP Report by Dr. Tobias Wuttke and Paul Lepschy discusses the applicability of the UPCA in national infringement proceedings, the relevance and scope of Art. 83 UPCA, and jurisdictional issues. 💡Learn more: https://lnkd.in/dzwf_4Kk 📥Download the German version: https://lnkd.in/d6P4jbfH #IntellectualProperty #UPCA #CaseLaw

9

📯 Vienna is calling. Two of Austria's best-known patent attorney firms are joining forces to focus more closely on the UPC. Austrian law firms are currently not only active with an above-average number of cases at the UPC. The market is also on the move. With SONN Patentanwälte and Haffner & Keschmann, two very well-known law firms are joining forces. In future, three of the six leading Austrian patent attorneys selected by JUVE Patent last year work in the new firm. #patent #patentlaw #patentlitigation   Marc Keschmann Daniel Alge Rainer Beetz

46

The German language book "Einheitspatentsystem" was recently published. It covers the new unitary patent system and Unified Patent Court (UPC) of the European Union. Koen Bijvank, (partner / advocaat / patent attorney), has contributed to this book together with various judges and lawyers. He shares his insights in the book and provides answers to questions about this new legal system.  "𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗣𝗖 𝗰𝗲𝗹𝗲𝗯𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗶𝘁𝘀 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝗻𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘀𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝘄 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺 𝗮𝗹𝗿𝗲𝗮𝗱𝘆 𝗯𝗲𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝗴𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘁 𝘀𝘂𝗰𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀, 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝘃𝗮𝗹𝘂𝗮𝗯𝗹𝗲 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗿𝗰𝗲 𝗼𝗳 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗿𝘆𝗼𝗻𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗣𝗖 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝘂𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗮𝗿𝘆 𝗽𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘀𝘆𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗺." The book can be ordered through the Wolters Kluwer publisher's website. ➡ #upc #law

35

Good for NPEs and litigation funders: UPC Munich LD denies requests to order U.S.-based licensing firm to provide security for litigation costs Non-EU patent holders can now afford more enforcement actions with the same amount of funding. The Munich Local Division (Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, Judge-rapporteur Tobias Pichlmaier, Judge Pierluigi Perrotti (Milan)) wants to see evidence of a patent holder not being able to reimburse a defendant's litigation costs if the complaint is rejected. There has to be a clear and present danger of bankruptcy, for instance. It's not enough that a company is small and based outside the EU. The Munich LD does not want to discriminate, and does not want to unfairly restrict access to justice. The court granted leave and Volkswagen Group, AUDI AG and Texas Instruments have indeed appealed. The plaintiff is asserting former Arteris patents acquired from Philips, and is represented by Simmons & Simmons's Dr Thomas Gniadek. For VW/Audi: BARDEHLE PAGENBERG's Dr. Jan Bösing. For TI: HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER's Klaus Haft. https://lnkd.in/dqtpnwkG

12

Today the Unified Patent Court's Munich Local Division held its Philips v. Belkin trial over a #patent essential to the Qi wireless charging standard. An injunction appears quite possible, but is not a given. 1. Claim construction / infringement: The Dusseldorf Regional Court had rejected a complaint involving the same parties and the same patent based on a narrow claim construction. No timely appeal was brought. According to what ip fray has learned, the UPC merely considers the Dusseldorf claim construction an opinion to take note of, but wants to form its own opinion. The panel appeared inclined to adopt a slightly broader interpretation, in which case Belkin will be held to infringe. 2. Validity: There's a favorable preliminary opinion from the Federal Patent Court (Bundespatentgericht), but that is not binding on anyone, much less on the UPC. It appeared that the prior art references cited by Belkin were too far away from the challenged patent to matter. The court, did, however discuss at length an invalidity contention based on added subject matter. What can be said is that the decision will likely hinge on that question, and that the positive opinion by the Federal Patent Court, while not binding, makes a validity finding slightly more likely. 3. No #FRAND defense: Belkin's FRAND defense had failed in Dusseldorf, and they didn't even try in the UPC. In accordance with EU antitrust law (Huawei v. ZTE), a FRAND defense can succeed only if the patent-in-suit confers market power. Here, Qi is just one of various ways of charging a device. There are different proprietary wireless charging systems, and there's always the option of charging over a cable. Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann mentioned this only in passing. 4. CEO liability: German courts have frequently held company CEOs liable for patent infringement, but that makes Germany an outlier in Europe. In order to work around the above-mentioned Dusseldorf history, Philips excluded Germany from the list of approximately 10 UPC member states for which it seeks an injunction, but only with respect to the two legal entities that already defended themselves against the Dusseldorf case. They added other defendants and want a UPC injunction to enjoin those defendants in Germany. That includes the CEOs of two Belkin subsidiaries. It's unclear whether the UPC will adopt the German stance. 5. It's remarkable that despite the Dusseldorf history, this case is alive. The decision will be announced on September 6. Five days later, another Philips v. Belkin trial takes place (as ip fray reported on LinkedIn). 6. Panel: Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, Judge Tobias Pichlmaier, Judge Edger Brinkman (The Hague), Technically Qualified Judge Anders Hansson. 7. Counsel: BARDEHLE PAGENBERG's Dr. Tilman Müller, Tobias Wuttke and Anita Peter as well as Eisenführ Speiser's Dr. Christoph Fehn and Desiree Heintz for the plaintiff, DLA Piper's Dr. Philipp Cepl and Dr. Constanze Krenz for the defendant.

24

❗️❗️ NEW: UPC Munich local division to get second judges' panel in June. 💬 Well-informed sources have told JUVE Patent that a second panel will be established on 1 June 2024 as a response to the large number of cases filed in Munich. The UPC has yet to confirm this. There are reportedly talks of expanding other divisions. For more details, read our latest ticker update on JUVE Patent 👇  #upc #patentlitigation #unifiedpatentcourt #patentlaw #patent

36

#BARDEHLEfamily 🎤 Managing IP Awards interviewed our #PatentLitigator Prof. Dr. Tilman Müller-Stoy, how BARDEHLE PAGENBERG has evolved to the point of handling about a third of Unified Patent Court cases and enjoying notable success in the Managing IP EMEA Awards 2024 (about incredible five awards). 🎓 Tilman's advice to younger patent lawyers: "Be hungry and aware, yet take your time, step by step, and don’t hurry. [...] Most importantly: be selective and let some opportunities go; you can’t have them all." 👉 Read the full interview here: https://lnkd.in/dTxt-sYU #IntellectualProperty #PatentLaw #UPC IP STARS (Managing IP)

22

1 Kommentar

📢 Breaking: The Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf is dissolving one of its two senates for patent cases. This follows the departure of Ulrike Voß to the Unified Patent Court. In future, all patent proceedings at the Higher Regional Court will be handled by the 2nd Civil Senate under presiding judge Thomas Fricke. As a reaction to the rising numbers of cases at the #UPC, there are also changes at the patent chambers of the Regional Court. #patent #patentlaw Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf Landgericht Düsseldorf

20

Thanks Claus Becker for your insight into the latest Unitary Patent trends. Read our short article on the latest discrepancies, statistics and language requirements of the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court: https://lnkd.in/e288XvxF #patent #UPC #UnifiedPatentCourt #OneFirmYourFirm #PatentLitigation #patentlitigators #statistics

39

On 13 & 14 June 2024 the next edition of the CEIPI Executive IP Management Days will be hosted in Strasbourg. The program is: Thursday 13.06.2024: 9.00 – 9.45 : Patenting AI – Comparing Europe & US by Stefan Müller: "Case law relating to the patenting of AI has developed rapidly in recent years. Companies often find that the grant rates of their AI patents are significantly higher in their own jurisdiction than in other jurisdictions or that the obtained scope of protection is comparatively narrow in the other jurisdictions. An international comparison with focus on EP and US and examples of possible solutions are discussed." 9.45 – 10.30: AI and copyright by Işıl Selen Denemeç, LL.M.: "A multitude of generative AI tools for text, image, audio and video generation became recently available on the market and are used for business and private purposes. With that many copyright related questions arise regarding copyright protection and ownership for AI generated works." 11.00 – 11.45: Trademarks in the digital world by 📌Maria Boicova-Wynants: “While big brands already actively navigate the complexities of online platforms and the emerging Metaverse, securing the brand's position in the digital age becomes increasingly relevant for companies of any size. Gain insights into this shifting landscape and discover how brands can assert control over their digital presence, preventing unwanted redirections and safeguarding their online reputation.” 11.45 – 12.30: Generative AI and chemistry by Laura Fè: "How can chemical companies profit from the use of AI in the development process? What are the current IP challenges for the chemical industry regarding the patent protection of generative AI solutions and how can you overcome them?" 14.00 – 14.45: Patenting AI innovations: use cases and case studies by Sebastian Goebel: "We are seeing a lot of hype around AI, and this is also true when it comes to AI patenting. SMEs must not neglect intellectual property protection. Learn from practical examples how SMEs can effectively protect their AI-based innovations and develop a sustainable IP strategy for AI patents." 14.45 – 15.30: IP risk assessment by Shu-Pei Oei (黄淑佩) Ph.D, LL.M, M.Sc: "What are Intellectual Property Risks, and how do they apply to modern organizations? How can IP Managers adapt traditional IP Management models for needs in a VUCA world." Friday 14.06.2024: 9.00 – 9.45: The GenAI Revolution of Patent Management by Roland Kraml: "Generative AI is transforming all aspects of patent work and helps to improve efficiency and effectiveness of IP processes. Learn how AI-based patent management tools can help inventors and IP managers in their daily work." 9.45 – 10.30: AI-assisted patent analytics by Leonhard Brader: “How can AI-assisted patent analytics be effectively used to analyse patent portfolios? Gain a better understanding of the IP strategies of competitors by the use of patent data.”

39

1 Kommentar

The Central Division Munich Section has today delivered its first judgments in proceedings UPC_CFI_1/2023 (revocation action) and UPC_CFI_14/2023 (referred revocation counterclaim). The judgments were handed down approximately one year after the action was filed. Both concern the patent EP 3 666 797, having the title “antigen binding proteins to proprotein convertase subtilisin kexin type 9 (´PCKS9´)”. The Central Division revoked the patent in its entirety due to a lack of inventive step. The judgments mainly contain statements on the interpretation of a patent, on the term “same invention” within the meaning of Art. 87 EPC and on the principles on the basis of which inventive step is to be examined. The (in substance identical) decisions can be read here: https://lnkd.in/eS5RMT5D and here: https://lnkd.in/eABBSA_5. #upc

186

1 Kommentar

Are German companies exposed to an increased risk of being attacked by a so-called "patent troll" before the Unified Patent Court (UPC)? In her recent article for the Prinz & Partner newsletter, Ute Feldmann takes a look at the current situation and into the distribution of UPC cases with patent trolls as claimants and shares our expectation for the future development. Want to know more? Follow this link for access to the full article: https://lnkd.in/ddysNNMH #upc #patent #patenttroll #infringement

9