Vita

Christopher Weber was admitted to the bar as a lawyer in Germany in 2007. The focus of Christopher Weber’s work is in the field of technical intellectual property rights (patents and utility models). His experience ranges from the management of individual national proceedings to the coordination of international disputes concerning a wide variety of intellectual property rights. The proceedings conducted by him cover virtually the entire range of technologies, including the fields of software, electronics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, mechanics, and plastics processing. He represents his clients in front of the civil courts and assists legal validity proceedings before the European Patent Office, the Federal Patent Court and the Federal Court of Justice. In addition, Christopher Weber also provides advice for unfair competition litigation with a technical focus. Managing IP and The Legal 500 name him as a recommended lawyer.

Christopher Weber joined Kather Augenstein as a partner at its inception. Previously, he worked in patent law with a leading international law firm in Düsseldorf.

He is a member of the German Association for Intellectual Property and Copyright (GRUR) and the Licensing Executives Society (LES) and publishes regularly in the fields of intellectual property law and procedural law.

Contact

„Christopher Weber joined the team from Bird & Bird in November 2016, bringing with him a wealth of experience in patent litigation.“
Managing Intellectual Property, IP Stars - 2017
Recommended for “high-quality advice” and “outstanding accuracy”
The Legal 500 Deutschland, 2018

 

Representative cases

  • Representation of a mobile phone company in a dispute on more than 45 patents against companies from Taiwan, Canada, and the US
  • Representation of an Italian pharmaceutical company on metered dose inhalers in main and summary proceedings (Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf – InstGE 10, 124 – Inhaler)
  • Representation of an U.S. pharmaceutical company in three actions concerning monoclonal antibodies and respective production methods
  • Representation of a leading German pharmaceutical company against a Danish competitor in several patent infringement disputes on insulin pens
  • Representation of a German inventor in a patent dispute against a leading furniture retailer (Regional Court Dusseldorf – 4b O 256/08 – PET-Bottle-Holder)
  • Representation of Scandinavian, German and British manufacturers of DVDs and set-top boxes on up to 12 MPEG-2 decoding patents respectively, inter alia before the Regional Court Dusseldorf, 4a O 81/07 – MPEG2 standard II
  • Representation of an SME in disputes on robotic lawnmowers, garden pumps and snow shovels
  • Representation of a Scandinavian-Japanese mobile equipment company in a multi-jurisdiction dispute over essential and non-essential patents against a Korean manufacturer of mobile phones

Publications

  • Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf: Inspection of files during FRAND-proceedings, Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Decision of  25 April 2018 – I-2 W 8/18 (Regional Court DUS), GRUR-PRAX 11/2018
  • FCJ: The need for standing to sue for nullity suits after patent expiration, FCJ decision of 16.01.2018 – X ZR 89/15 (Federal Patent Court), BecksRS 2018, 2860, GRUR-Prax 9/2018, 215 [German]
  • The Wundversorgung decision – proportionality and injunctive relief in Germany, FCJ decision of 11 October 2017 – I ZB 96/16, IPKat, 25 April 2018
  • Solomonic comission? The EU communication on standard essential patents, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte, April 2018, 153-156 [German]
  • One wrong decision beats multiple sales, BGH decision of 4 May 2017 – 1 ZR 208/15, IPRB 2018, 4-5 [German]
  • The term “Detox” is a health claim, comments on BGH, decision of 29 March 2017 – I ZR 71/16, IPRB 2017, 269 [German]
  • Reimbursement of licensing fees for retroactive distruction of a SEP?, GRUR, 12/2017, 1182 [German]
  • Düsseldorf Court of Appeal in SISVEL v Haier publishes “guidebook” to SEP litigation under Huawei/ZTE, IPKat, 7 November 2017
  • Discriminatory FRAND-Offer, Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, decision of 30 March 2017 – I-15 U 66/15, GRUR-PRAX 20/2017, 465 [German]
  • Higher Regional Court Hamburg: Settlement of SEP-infringement, Higher Regional Court Hamburg, decision of 16.02.2017 – 3 U 15/15, GRUR-Prax, 5/2017, 368 [German]
  • Scope of claim during further development of an employee invention which was not claimed in time, IPRB, 7/2017,  BGH, decision of 14.2.2017 –X ZR 64/15 – Lichtschutzfolie [German]
  • The sun rises on plausibility, but where (and when) will it set?, IPKat, 25 April 2017
  • German Court prowls into the realm of confidentiality clubs, IPKat, 7 February 2017
  • Legal consequences of successful FRAND-objection, GRUR-Prax, 03/2017, 67-69 [German]
  • Abusive forum-shopping in trademark preliminary injunction proceedings , IPRB, 2/2017, 33 [German]
  • Federal Court of Justice: Regional courts exclusively competent for all penalty complaints, GRUR-Prax, 01/2017, 20 [German]
  • Regional Court Mannheim: Assertion of standard-essential patents, GRUR-Prax, 23/2016, 535 [German]
  • Abstract on unfinished research work not harmful to novelty or inventiveness, Comments on FSC19.3.2016 X ZR 148/11, IPRB 2016, 270-271, [German]
  • Enforcement of standard essential patents, comments on Regional Court Mannheim Judgment of 1 July 20167 O 209/15, GRUR-Prax 2016, 535 [German]
  • Comments on Higher Regional Court Stuttgart of 8 October 2015 – 2 U 25/15, No right to silence or to refuse to give evidence of infringer against right to information, IPRB 2016, 222-223 [German]
  • Comments on Higher Regional Court Frankfurt of 3 March 2016 – 6 U 29/15, Claim to remuneration of freelancers for inventions, IPRB 2016, 151-152 [German]
  • Strategic advantage or incalculable risk – vehicle procurement in China, along with Junge-Gierse, ChinaContact September 2015
  • The development of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Justice regarding computer-implemented developments, IPRB 2015, 163 –166 [German]
  • Licenses in danger – For insolvency-resistance for licenses, Reinraum Magazin 1, 2015, 38 [German]
  • Enforcement in patent infringement proceedings, Chosen problems during injunctions, IPRB 2014, 252-255 [German]
  • Comments on Federal Court of Justice– Palettes Container II, “Customary usage in the trade” gains importance in determining infringement in repair/reconstruction cases, World Intellectual Property Review, March 2013, p. 38 et seq.
  • Private right of prior use according to § 12 PatG, for enforcement and implementation in patent proceedings, along with Harmsen, IPRB 2013, 18-20 [German]
  • Comments on Federal Court of Justice – Dynamic generation of documents, Is Germany clearing the way for software patents?, Electronics Group Newsletter 2010