Nathan Kaiser

Bernhard Ganahl appears before the Düsseldorf panel of the Unified Patent Court: Yesterday, Dr Dirk Jestaedt of KRIEGER MES and Bernhard Ganahl had the honour of representing one of HGF's first patent infringement cases for expert e-commerce GmbH and expert klein GmbH before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) in Düsseldorf. This case, which concerns a light emitting diode, represents a historic moment for the firm. As one of the first oral hearings before the UPC in Düsseldorf, this case marks an important step in the development of HGF's expertise in international patent law and underpins the firm's commitment to legal excellence at the highest level. This is the 7th and 8th hearing to take place before the UPC. The hearing required a concentrated focus on the crucial arguments and in-depth discussions took place between the parties and the court. The judgement is expected in a few weeks. #UPC #PatentLaw #Innovation #PatentInfringement

63

3 Comments

We are often confronted with the question as to how to acquire #intellectualproperty (IP) assets. Here is a short guide on how to find and buy #IP assets: https://lnkd.in/e7ubWAZv. Contact us for more information.

2

🔎 Our penultimate profile showcases Torggler & Hofmann Patent Attorneys. A small but canny patent attorney firm from Austria that knows how to use the UPC's divisions to best advantage. Read more about this nominee for the JUVE Patent Award UPC Firm of the Year 2025 on JUVE Patent now. #juvepatent #juvepatentaward

30

1 Comment

The Weblaw Forum LegalTech was a blast! 🚀 We had an incredible time engaging with industry experts and exploring the latest advancements in #LegalTech. The event was packed with insightful keynotes and discussions that highlighted the future of #AI in the legal sector. Here are some highlights: 🇨🇭 AI Regulation for Swiss Companies David Rosenthal broke down the AI regulations, touching on data protection, copyright, and the EU AI Act. He shared crucial insights on what Swiss companies need to focus on now and in the future. 🤖 Harvey AI & Co: AI in Legal Departments Philipp Rosenauer gave us a deep dive into AI in legal departments. He tackled both the incredible opportunities and the challenges, sharing his hands-on experience with Harvey AI. ⚖ Panel Discussion: Beyond the "Legal AI Buzz" Alisha Andert, Dr. Michael Burkart and Andrei Salajan took us beyond the hype, discussing the real-world impact and future of AI in the legal field. Their insights were both practical and visionary. A huge thank you to all the speakers and participants for making this event so inspiring. We're excited about the future of AI in the legal industry! Franz Kummer, David Schneeberger, Marc Geiger, Urs Bracher, Carmen De la Cruz, Dr. Daniel Halft, Bojan Konic, Dr Anita Lamprecht, Frank Richter and Marc Dietschi #legaltech #ai #innovation #futureoflaw #alpinumsolutions 

67

The Unified Patent Court's Düsseldorf Local Division may soon have to adjudicate a contempt motion. There is a disagreement between ORTOVOX and Mammut Sports Group AG over the latter's compliance with the UPC's first-ever preliminary injunction to be affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The controversy surfaced in a procedural order (denial of leave for further pleading) in the related main proceedings, which will already go to trial in late November. The plaintiff sought to add another accused product. Too late, says Presiding Judge and judge-rapporteur Ronny Thomas. To the extent that Ortovox is concerned about compliance with the injunction, he says they can move for contempt fines under the affirmed PI. The enforcement squabble is about this: Mammut disabled certain functionality in Germany and Austria, but Ortovox suspects customers can game the system by activating the feature outside those countries and keeping it as they return to Germany or Austria. If that is so, they have to file a contempt motion. Counsel for Ortovox: KATHER AUGENSTEIN's Miriam Kiefer LL.M. and patent attorney HSS - IP Patent & Recht (Hofstetter, Schurack & Partner)'s patent attorney Michael Siebel. Counsel for Mammut: Bird & Bird's Oliver Jan Juengst, Dr. Moritz Schröder, Dr. Alexander Bothe and ThomannFischer - Your Commercial Law Boutique in Basel's Dr. Dr. Fabian Leimgruber. Counsel for Mammut:

5

❗️𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁𝗮𝗻𝘁 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗯𝘆 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗨𝗻𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗲𝗱 𝗣𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗖𝗼𝘂𝗿𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗙𝗥𝗔𝗡𝗗 𝗡𝗲𝗴𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗣𝗿𝗮𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲𝘀 ❗️ 𝙏𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩 𝙧𝙪𝙡𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙊𝙋𝙋𝙊 𝙞𝙣𝙛𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙚𝙙 𝙋𝙖𝙣𝙖𝙨𝙤𝙣𝙞𝙘'𝙨 𝙨𝙩𝙖𝙣𝙙𝙖𝙧𝙙-𝙚𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙡 𝙥𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙣𝙩 (𝙎𝙀𝙋) 𝙧𝙚𝙡𝙖𝙩𝙚𝙙 𝙩𝙤 4𝙂 𝙩𝙚𝙘𝙝𝙣𝙤𝙡𝙤𝙜𝙞𝙚𝙨. 𝙊𝙋𝙋𝙊'𝙨 𝙁𝙍𝘼𝙉𝘿 𝙙𝙚𝙛𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙬𝙖𝙨 𝙙𝙞𝙨𝙢𝙞𝙨𝙨𝙚𝙙 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙧𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙙 𝙩𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙊𝙋𝙋𝙊 𝙝𝙖𝙙 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙨𝙝𝙤𝙬𝙣 𝙨𝙪𝙛𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙞𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡𝙞𝙣𝙜𝙣𝙚𝙨𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙚𝙣𝙩𝙚𝙧 𝙞𝙣𝙩𝙤 𝙖 𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙚 𝙖𝙜𝙧𝙚𝙚𝙢𝙚𝙣𝙩 𝙤𝙣 𝙁𝙍𝘼𝙉𝘿 𝙩𝙚𝙧𝙢𝙨. Yesterday, the Unified Patent Court (UPC) LD Mannheim issued its first FRAND decision. This landmark ruling emphasizes inter alia the critical role of companies benefiting from standardized technologies to actively and productively engage in licensing negotiations. The decision underscores the responsibility of licensees to participate earnestly and in good faith in these negotiations. It strengthens the enforceability of SEPs and promotes fair, transparent licensing practices. Successful FRAND negotiations require both patent holders and licensees to take their roles and responsibilities seriously. 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗢𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗮𝗻𝗶𝗲𝘀: This decision could have far-reaching consequences for companies using standardized technologies. They must engage proactively and in good faith in FRAND negotiations to avoid legal conflicts and secure fair licensing terms. 🤔 𝙒𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙮𝙤𝙪𝙧 𝙩𝙝𝙤𝙪𝙜𝙝𝙩𝙨 𝙤𝙣 𝙝𝙤𝙬 𝙩𝙝𝙞𝙨 𝙙𝙚𝙘𝙞𝙨𝙞𝙤𝙣 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙞𝙢𝙥𝙖𝙘𝙩 𝙛𝙪𝙩𝙪𝙧𝙚 𝙡𝙞𝙘𝙚𝙣𝙨𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙣𝙚𝙜𝙤𝙩𝙞𝙖𝙩𝙞𝙤𝙣𝙨? #Patent #UPC #FRAND #Licensing #Negotiation Panasonic OPPO

46

4 Comments

Patent litigation made a comeback in 2024, increasing over 18% in district court. Even NPEs in Europe were busy in the UPC. Read through Unified's 2024 Patent Dispute Report about PTAB petitions, ex parte reexam requests, and district court patent filings that all increased last year. #TheAntiTroll #2024PDR #patents #reexams #patentlitigation https://lnkd.in/g-Wm-kqq

5

The methods used to run prior art searches and legal research in patent cases are now being forced to change, thanks to Large Language Models (LLMs). With their contribution, patent litigation processes are becoming more systematic, thereby enhancing the competencies of legal teams. So, in what other way are LLMs playing a critical role in patent litigation? Read Mamata Saha’s blog and find out for yourself! Here’s the link: https://lnkd.in/gQyJQxbm #priorartsearch #legalresearch #largelanguagemodels #llms #patentlitigationprocesses #ai #relecura Ginish George, PhD Alex Paikada Neha Reddy Prajakta Bangale

8

6 Comments

👀 UPC’s must-sees: UPC_CFI_114/2024 & UPC_CFI_448/2024, 25 September 2024, Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG, Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KG v Vibrantz GmbH 📝 Rule 263 (Amendment of claims): Yes and No 🥥 In a nutshell: ◼️ The court allows the modification of the patent claims for its German part along the corresponding infringement claims in order to take into account res judicata of a decision by the German court. ◼️ The modification is allowed as it narrows the initial scope for Germany and does not change the claims for France and Italy. ◼️ Addition of infringement claims not triggered by the res judicata effect of the German decision are not allowed as these claims could and should have been made earlier. 📸 The facts: ◼️ The claimant initiated an infringement action against the defendant for Germany, France and Italy. ◼️ A parallel invalidity action was pending before the German court for the German part of the patent. ◼️  After withdrawal of an appeal against the German court’s decision amending the patent, the claimant sought modification of its case arguing res judicata of the German court’s decision on the German part of the patent. ◼️ The defendant objected, inter alia, to a part of the modification adding new “indirect” infringement claims. ⚖️ Solution: ◼️ In order for an amendment to a claim to be admitted, both conditions must be met (a) the modification in question could not have been made earlier with due diligence and (b) that the modification does not unduly hinder the other party in the conduct of its proceedings. ◼️ Unconditional limitation of a claim is always permissible. Only the limitation of the claims triggered by the res judicata effect of the decision is allowed. #ifyoudontknownowyouknow #UPC #JUB #unifiedpatentcourt #juridictionunifieedubrevet

15

Our October patent newsletter has published: https://dycip.com/2RGXnGd As summer leaves us behind, we can look forward to more exciting developments from the Unified Patent Court (UPC). This edition of the newsletter looks at how the UPC deals with parallel proceedings at the EPO (Carrier v Bitzer), the court's approach to inventive step (Meril v Edwards), provisional measures (Abbott v SiBio), and we report back from a recent trip to the UPC Paris Central Division. If you're interested in UPC case law, observations and analysis, do sign up to our next UPC webinar on 13 November 2024. Our next European biotech patent case law webinar is also now open for registrations and will broadcast on 05 November 2024. On the topic of AI innovation we discuss patent trends in the energy sector, AI-assisted inventions in the UK & USA, and the use of AI patent analysis and machine learning to help protect endangered wildlife. We also take a look at recent clarification provided by the CJEU about withdrawing marketing authorisations and supplementary protection certificates (SPCs). As ever, please contact your D Young & Co LLP representative should you have any questions on these topics or any other IP queries. Thank you to this edition's contributors: Simon O'Brien, Oliver Cartwright, Jonathan DeVile, Molly Guy-Hickson, Sam Keyes, Sean McCann, Connor McConchie, Cathrine McGowan, Szymon Pancewicz, Miranda Simmons, Stephen Solomon and Gemma Sparrow. #patentnews #unifiedpatentcourt #UPC #aipatents #patentcaselaw #spc

14

As Roya Ghafele mentions here, a UK judge following the webinar yesterday noted that most license agreements adduced as comparables by litigants are *not* relevant comparables. There obviously is an inherent selection bias, but the difference is that in London they make a lot more of an effort to tell relevant from irrelevant third-party agreements than in Germany. https://lnkd.in/dZCUy4EM

18

In what may be the first procedural order on behalf of the 2nd panel of the Unified Patent Court's Munich Local Division, Presiding Judge and judge-rapporteur Ulrike Voss ("Voß" in German) denied a motion to waive translation requirements for various documents (from German to English), the key reason being that the third legally qualified judge on the panel, Judge Petri Rinkinen, is not fluent in German. The case is Qufora v. Manfred Sauer, the latter also being the applicant who wanted to avoid translation costs. Other arguments such as German being one of the official languages of the European Patent Office and the Munich LD being based in a German-speaking country didn't count either. But the court accepted the machine translations provided by the applicant (the defendant). The applicant argued that there were so many factors in place to render translations from German unnecessary that if the court didn't waive the translation requirement here, Art. 51(1) UPCA would never play a role. That didn't persuade the court either. ip fray believes that in practice it could indeed be difficult to obtain such a waiver for documents written in German, and probably also for documents written in French, while for English-language documents there would still be many scenarios where translation is indeed unnecessary. The applicant also raised an issue that the order does not explain in detail and which relates to "a hearing of the Respondent prior to the procedural formalities." That didn't get any traction either. The order takes note of the auxiliary request to just file the machine translations the applicant provided and says it's not necessary to enter another order requiring translations. Here, ip fray is not sure that the quality of the machine translations will be sufficient. The order does not suggest that Judge Voss performed quality assurance. So there could still be a risk of someone complaining about the quality of the translations. Generally, machine translations from German to English work pretty well, but they are suboptimal and there can be errors. The plaintiff is represented by Simmons & Simmons's Peter Meyer, the defendant by ULLRICH & NAUMANN Patent- und Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB's Dr. Ulrich Naumann, Gregor Hodapp, Dr. Daniel Schaft and Patric Werner. https://lnkd.in/gXBz-RTu

3

#UPCDigest An SEP decision from the UPC, although the SEP and FRAND issues weren’t significant. More interesting were the claim construction points. Our article looks at these points in more detail. #UPC #carpmaelsupc #carpmaels #CarpmaelsEngineeringAndTech

9

*Burgeon Law Advises General Catalyst in its Investment in Billion Hearts Software Technologies* Burgeon Law advised General Catalyst, in its investment in Billion Hearts Software Technologies. Billion Hearts Software Technologies recently secured $4 million as part of its seed funding round led by Blume Ventures, General Catalyst and Athera Venture Partners. Founded by Mayank Bidawatka in August, Billion Hearts is dedicated to crafting digital products tailored for a worldwide user base. The company’s first product is expected to enter its beta launch phase in the coming months. Ankit Bhasin (Partner), along with along with Aastha Agarwallaa (Senior Associate) worked on this transaction. Read more on The Economic Times: https://lnkd.in/g9j5RVHD #BillionHearts #software #digitalproducts #investment #funding #legaladvisory

22

Read the report "An introduction to the Design Law Treaty (DLT) Part 1, and November 2024 DipCon" from Chair of FICPI's Study & Work Group on Designs, Jürgen Buchhold, Partner at Olbricht Patentanwälte in Germany The World Intellectual Property Organization – WIPO Diplomatic Conference to Conclude and Adopt a Design Law Treaty is taking place in Riyadh from 11-22 November 2024 Read Jurgen's article on the background and FICPI's involvement to date at: https://lnkd.in/eVkurA69 #designlaw #designlawtreaty #wipo #designs #attorneys

11

Unified Patent Court infringement filings: Munich leading in October, Hamburg post-vacation-season; The Hague growing fastest in UPC Year 2 Various observations on how the numbers of UPC infringement lawsuit filings in the various divisions have evolved. The Hague and Hamburg were about three times as strong in the first five months (June-October) of the UPC's second 12-month period as in the first twelve-month period. The German LDs combined have maintained a share of approximately 78%. At least two of the October filings were very high-profile (ParTec AG v. NVIDIA, ArcelorMittal v. XPENG), and a major decision is coming up on December 18 (Huawei v. NETGEAR). https://lnkd.in/dKsqXgFr

18