Latest news.
Kather Augenstein again awarded the highest rating of 5 stars in JUVE Patent Ranking Germany 2025
We are delighted Kather Augenstein has been awarded again the highest rating of 5 stars in the recently published JUVE Patent Ranking Germany 2025.
This recognition reinforces our standing as one of Germany’s leading boutique law firms in patent litigation. JUVE Patent highlights our strong performance before the Unified Patent Court (UPC), noting:
“Kather Augenstein’s strong performance at the UPC comes as no surprise. The firm has been strategically preparing for the new court for years, which has paid immediate dividends as it quickly became one of the most active firms in UPC cases.”
We are delighted that our team’s work has been recognised across the following ranking categories:
Litigation: Lawyers – Germany 2025
Lawyers in Patent Litigation – Germany 2025 (Leading Individuals)
These awards reflect our ongoing commitment to excellence in patent litigation and our deep technical expertise across a range of industries, including mobile communications, automotive, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology and chemicals.
A heartfelt thank you to our clients for their continued trust, to our entire team for their dedication and exceptional work, and to JUVE Patent for this recognition.
We look forward to continuing to shape and progress important patent litigation in Germany, throughout Europe and before the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
Visit the JUVE Patent Germany 2025 page here.
Latest News.
Reproducibility as a prerequisite under Article 54(2) EPC – Decision of the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the EPO dated 2 July 2025 – G 1/23
On 2 July 2025, the Enlarged Board of Appeal of the European Patent Office (Enlarged Board) handed down its long-awaited decision in case G 1/23.
The case concerned the question of the extent to which a publicly available product must be reproducible by a person skilled in the art in order to be considered prior art under Art. 54(2) EPC.
I. Facts and issue
The subject of the opposition proceedings was a patent protecting the technical teaching for encapsulating solar cells. The opponent considered a commercially available polymer to be prejudicial to novelty. It was undisputed between the parties that the exact manufacturing process was not generally known. The opponent therefore argued that a person skilled in the art would be able to produce a polymer similar to the available product. However, exact reproducibility could not be legally required. While the Opposition Division rejected the opposition, the Board of Appeal referred the following three questions to the Enlarged Board of Appeal:
- Is a product put on the market before the date of filing of a European patent application to be excluded from the state of the art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC for the sole reason that its composition or internal structure could not be analysed and reproduced without undue burden by the skilled person before that date?
- If the answer to question 1 is no, is technical information about said product which was made available to the public before the filing date (e.g. by publication of technical brochure, non-patent or patent literature) state of the art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC, irrespective of whether the composition or internal structure of the product could be analysed and reproduced without undue burden by the skilled person before that date?
- If the answer to question 1 is yes or the answer to question 2 is no, which criteria are to be applied in order to determine whether or not the composition or internal structure of the product could be analysed and reproduced without undue burden within the meaning of opinion G 1/92?
II. Considerations of the Enlarged Board of Appeal
In this context, the Enlarged Board of Appeal once again dealt in depth with a decision from 1992 (G 1/92). In that case, the Enlarged Board of Appeal had ruled that
“The chemical composition of a product is state of the art when the product as such is available to the public and can be analysed and reproduced by the skilled person irrespective of whether or not particular reasons can be identified for analysing the composition.”
The Enlarged Board of Appeal noted that the question referred for the G 1/92 decision did not contain any reference to reproducibility of any kind. It read as follows:
Is the chemical composition of a product made available to the public by virtue of the availability to the public of that product, irrespective of whether particular reasons can be identified to cause the skilled person to analyse the composition?
The Enlarged Board of Appeal therefore first examined the question of whether the feature of reproducibility should be assessed differently depending on whether the reproducibility of the chemical composition or of the entire product was considered. However, the Enlarged Board of Appeal concluded that the requirement of reproducibility was no longer tenable in either interpretation.
The criterion of reproducibility created a legal fiction according to which a product that was actually freely available did not exist for the skilled person. This contradicted general life experience. Furthermore, exceptions must be handled restrictively and standardised by law. In the present case, it was not apparent from the law why public products should be treated differently from written prior art, which – unlike patent applications – is also not examined for its feasibility.
In addition, the requirement of reproducibility would mean that the precursors of the product potentially damaging to novelty would also have to be reproducible, since the skilled person could also only use the prior art to assess the question of reproducibility. This would mean that the skilled person would not only have to be very familiar with the vertical distribution chain, but would ultimately also have to be able to reproduce all preliminary products, i.e., in extreme cases, starting at the atomic and molecular level. The Enlarged Board of Appeal referred, by way of example, to crude oil, which is the precursor to countless applications and yet cannot be reproduced to this day. This example shows that the requirement of reproducibility leads to inappropriate results.
The Enlarged Board of Appeal emphasised that, although it is theoretically possible to draw a line in the distribution chain, this cannot lead to satisfactory results given the multitude of technical areas.
Therefore, the requirement of reproducibility must be dropped.
As this already eliminated the second part of the cumulative requirement of the question referred (“analysed and reproduced without undue burden”), it was no longer relevant whether the undue burden requirement also applied to analysability. The Enlarged Board of Appeal suggested that there could well be cases in which analysability constituted an unreasonable burden, but left open the question of whether this had any bearing on whether a product belonged to the state of the art or not.
III. Answers to the questions referred
The Enlarged Board of Appeal subsequently answered the first question referred (in the negative) as follows:
“A product put on the market before the date of filing of a European patent application cannot be excluded from the state of the art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC for the sole reason that its composition or internal structure could not be analysed and reproduced by the skilled person before that date.”
The Enlarged Board of Appeal answered the second question referred for a preliminary ruling with a logical “yes” and explained:
“Technical information about such a product which was made available to the public before the filing date forms part of the state of the art within the meaning of Article 54(2) EPC, irrespective of whether the skilled person could analyse and reproduce the product and its composition or internal structure before that date.”
Since the third question referred required either a yes answer to the first question or a no answer to the second question, the Enlarged Board of Appeal left it open.
IV. Assessment
The skilled person no longer needs to be able to reproduce a product for it to be considered prior art. Analysability is sufficient. This increases legal certainty for third parties. The requirements are identical for all technical fields and independent of the details of the specific case. The Enlarged Board of Appeal has thus opted for an all-or-nothing solution in order to avoid contradictions. This is successful. On the other hand, the decision severely restricts the position of patent holders in opposition and appeal proceedings. The future will show whether a more differentiated approach is necessary after all.
National courts have so far predominantly pursued a more restrictive approach, as also pointed out by the AIPPI in its amicus curiae brief.
In the European context, it remains to be seen what course the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court will take, which in the past has been open to EPO case law, as this naturally provides a more harmonised European approach than decisions by national courts.
Latest News.
IP Stars – Managing IP awards Kather Augenstein counsels Dr Benjamin Pesch and Carsten Plaga as Rising Stars 2025
We are delighted our counsels Dr Benjamin Pesch and Carsten Plaga have been named Rising Stars in the latest Managing IP – IP Stars Ranking 2025.
This prestigious award recognises young lawyers who have distinguished themselves through their particular expertise, commitment and sustained success in the field of intellectual property.
Dr Benjamin Pesch has been listed as a Rising Star for the fifth consecutive year – demonstrating his continued excellence in the field of patent law. His focus is on advising national and international clients on the enforcement of intellectual property rights, particularly in the fields of telecommunications and automotive. Accordingly, he has been involved in several major disputes before national courts and the Unified Patent Court in recent years (most recently Panasonic v. Oppo/Xiaomi). Another focus of his work is strategic advice in the area of licence agreements and advising clients in cases of patent applications by unauthorised third parties (vindication). His repeated award underscores his recognised position in the international IP community.
Carsten Plaga has been included in the Rising Star category for the first time this year. He primarily advises on patent law, with a particular focus on proceedings in the fields of technology, pharmaceuticals and life sciences. In addition to his work in patent infringement and nullity proceedings, he impresses with his deep technical understanding and practice-oriented advice of the highest standard.
His inclusion amongst the rankings reflects his growing visibility and the high quality of his work. He has already been involved in numerous proceedings before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and thus has a broad experience in both national patent infringement proceedings and at European level.
With these two awards, Managing IP confirms Kather Augenstein‘s position as a leading boutique for complex and contentious IP proceedings in Germany. The recognition of Dr. Benjamin Pesch and Carsten Plaga impressively demonstrates the professional strength and depth of our team.
We warmly congratulate both of them on this well-deserved award!
Latest News.
UPC: Jurisdiction for infringement actions against several companies located domestically and abroad (Local Division Munich)
In a decision dated 20 June 2025, the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) ruled on several preliminary objections to its international jurisdiction. The decision concerns a cross-border patent infringement action against four different companies.
1. Facts of the case
The Claimant alleges that various mobile devices infringe its European patent. The complaint was directed against: Two affiliated companies based in the USA (Defendants 1 and 2), a German distribution company belonging to the same group (Defendant 3), and a Dutch logistics company (Defendant 5), which was allegedly involved in the distribution of the devices.
In the Statement of Claim, the Claimant had cited Art. 33 (1) lit. b UPCA as the basis for the jurisdiction of the Local Division Munich. The Defendants filed a preliminary objection pursuant to R. 19 RoP, contesting jurisdiction and arguing, inter alia, that there was no relevant business relationship between the Defendants. The Claimant then supplemented its submission in the Statement of Defence with Art. 33 (1) lit. a UPCA referring to a specific delivery of a mobile device to Munich.
2. Decision of the Local Division Munich
The Local Division Munich rejected the Defendant’s preliminary objection. The preliminary objection of Defendants 1 and 2 was already inadmissible as they only filed their objection after the one-month period had expired. The preliminary objection of Defendants 3 and 5, on the other hand, was admissible but not well-founded.
a) Defendant 3 (German distribution company)
With regard to the German subsidiary, the Local Division Munich derived its jurisdiction directly from Art. 33 (1) lit. b sentence 1 UPCA. As Defendant 3’s principal place of business is in Germany, a German Local Division has local jurisdiction irrespective of the specific place of infringement. The further complaint of a lack of substantiation of the infringement allegations was irrelevant to the examination of jurisdiction.
b) Defendants 1 and 2 (US companies)
The court has already dismissed the preliminary objections of Defendants 1 and 2 as inadmissible. Defendants 1 and 2 did not file their preliminary objections until after the one-month time period pursuant to R. 19.1 RoP had expired. In cases of service outside the Contracting Member States, it is the actual service that matters, as the 10-day fiction under R. 271 (6) (b) RoP only applies to service within the Contracting Member States, not outside them. Defendants 1 and 2 did not comply with the one-month time limit based on the actual service of the Statement of Claim.
Notwithstanding this, the Court examined the merits of the preliminary objection alternatively. The Court found that the Local Division Munich had jurisdiction over the complaint against these two Defendants pursuant to Art. 33 (1) lit. b sentence 2 UPCA. The decisive factor was that one of the co-defendants (Defendant 3) has its registered office in Germany and that a business relationship within the meaning of the UPCA exists between the Defendants, as well as the fact that the same infringement allegation is made. The Chamber clarified that the requirements for a “business relationship” should not be set too high. An intra-group relationship and division of labour in the context of distribution are already sufficient.
c) Defendant 5 (Dutch logistics company)
The Munich Local Division affirmed jurisdiction for Defendant 5 on the basis of either Art. 33 (1) lit. b sentence 2 or lit. a UPCA. Although Defendant 5 does not belong to the same group as the other Defendants, the Court nevertheless found that a business relationship existed within the meaning of Art. 33 (1) lit. b sentence 2 UPCA, as the company operates as a logistics service provider for the group throughout Europe.
In the alternative, the Court also affirmed jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 33 (1) lit. a UPCA, as Defendant 5 also supplied the devices to Germany. In this context, the Court emphasised that the examination of jurisdiction did not depend on proof of infringement, but only on the Claimant’s submission.
This is also not contradicted by the fact that the Claimant only relied on the jurisdiction of Art. 33 (1) lit. b UPCA in the Statement of Claim. It is true that R. 13.1 (n) RoP presupposes that the Claimant must already make legal submissions with the Statement of Claim. However, this does not require the Claimant to anticipate all possible lines of defence. R. 13.1 (n) RoP does not prevent the Claimant from further specifying their defence or responding to objections raised by the Defendant.
3. Conclusion
The decision of the Local Division Munich is in line with the previous UPC case law and demonstrates that the UPC is a forum for efficiently bundling cross-border patent infringement proceedings in one place. The decision provides practical guidance on the following points in particular:
- The time period for filing a preliminary objection begins with the actual service in cases involving service outside the Contracting Member States. Entries in the CMS are not relevant.
- The requirements for a “business relationship” within the meaning of Art. 33 para. 1 lit. b sentence 2 UPCA should be interpreted broadly and include intra-group and logistical links.
- In principle, additional jurisdictional provisions can be invoked during the proceedings, even if they were not expressly mentioned in the Statement of Claim. However, for reasons of legal prudence, both of the jurisdictional elements set out in Art. 33 (1) UPCA should be invoked in the Statement of Claim, if possible.
Latest News.
Handelsblatt / Best Lawyers in Germany 2025 – Kather Augenstein again honored in the categories of intellectual property law and conflict resolution
Handelsblatt, in collaboration with the renowned US specialist publisher Best Lawyers, has published the 17th edition of its annual ranking of leading lawyers in Germany. Kather Augenstein has again been listed in intellectual property and litigation.
We are delighted to announce the special recognition received by Dr. Peter Kather, Dr. Christof Augenstein, Miriam Kiefer LL.M., Christopher Weber and Sören Dahm, who have been named among the best lawyers in Germany in their respective fields of intellectual property law. Also in the field of intellectual property law, Dr. Benjamin Pesch was named one of this year’s Ones to Watch – Lawyers of the Future. This award is given to lawyers who have distinguished themselves through outstanding achievements in their young careers. They have generally been practising for 3-8 years.
In addition, Dr. Christof Augenstein and Christopher Weber were listed as best lawyers in Germany in the field of litigation.
The ranking is based on an independent peer review survey of lawyers who make recommendations outside their own law firm. This award is therefore both a significant seal of quality and a high level of professional recognition within the industry.
We would like to thank our clients for their continued trust and our colleagues for their special appreciation.
Latest News.
Prestigious Recognition: Dr Christof Augenstein Listed in IAM Strategy 300 – The World’s Leading IP Strategists 2025
Kather Augenstein is delighted to announce that its partner, Dr Christof Augenstein, has been ranked among the IAM Strategy 300 – The World’s Leading IP Strategists 2025.
This prestigious recognition highlights Dr Augenstein’s exceptional strategic vision and achievements in the field of intellectual property. The IAM Strategy 300 is widely regarded as the definitive guide to the world’s leading IP strategists, featuring top professionals from renowned in-house teams, law firms, and specialised service providers.
Inductees are celebrated for their ability to generate outstanding value through innovative, forward-looking IP strategies. Dr. Augenstein’s inclusion reflects his tireless pursuit of excellence, strategic insight, and international recognition among peers.
Kather Augenstein warmly congratulates Dr Christof Augenstein on this distinguished honor, acknowledging his significant contributions to advancing intellectual property strategy.
The full IAM Strategy 300 – The World’s Leading IP Strategists 2025 list is available here.
Latest News.
Kather Augenstein appoints Carsten Plaga as Counsel, effective 1 July 2025
Carsten Plaga joined Kather Augenstein in 2018 and advises national and international clients in all areas of intellectual property law.
Carsten Plaga already established his professional specialisation during his studies at the University of Osnabrück, where he focused on German and European competition and intellectual property law. During his legal clerk, he gained practical experience at an international IP law firm in Düsseldorf and at a medium-sized law firm specialising in patent and copyright law in Osnabrück.
Carsten Plaga is an active member of the German Association for Industrial Property and Copyright Law (GRUR), the Centre for Corporate Law in Osnabrück (CUR) and the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI). He regularly gives lectures, in particular on patent law aspects, including at the German Lawyers’ Academy.
“In Carsten Plaga, we have a dedicated colleague who impresses with his expertise and unwavering commitment to client service“ says Miriam Kiefer, Managing Partner at Kather Augenstein. “His appointment reflects his past contributions, including our firm’s preparations regarding the UPC Case Management System, as well as our confidence in his continued success.”
Latest News.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) has clarified its case law on provisional measures in a series of decisions.
I. UPC_CoA_540/2024, 24.02.2025 – Necessity
In this decision, which was issued between competitors in the medical technology sector, the Court of Appeal emphasizes that the adoption of provisional measures requires that it can be proven that the outcome of the main proceedings cannot be awaited (so-called necessity). This is explicitly stated in the 22nd recital of the Enforcement Directive (2004/48/EC). A merely summary scope of review is only justified if the main proceedings cannot be awaited, for example if there is a threat of irreparable damage, although this is not a mandatory requirement.
In the specific case, the Court of Appeal did not consider interim measures necessary because the patent was granted in existing competitive relationships. The challenged product had already been on the market for years, which is why the applicant did not succeed in proving that this “status quo” now had to be changed for the time being and that the main proceedings could not be awaited.
Further attempts by the applicant to prove the necessity of their request were also unsuccessful. According to the Court of Appeal, it could not be concluded from participation in a trade fair last year that the product would also be exhibited there on the upcoming date. The applicant had to prove that the specific product would actually be exhibited at the trade fair. Nor did the applicant succeed in proving that the products were typically stocked, which would lead to a longer loss of demand. The respondent proved that a substitute was now available and that the challenged product was no longer sold in large quantities.
With regard to past tenders from major customers, it was also not sufficiently proven that the contract was awarded in favour of the respondent and to the detriment of the applicant.
The decision is a warning to applicants for interim measures not to underestimate the burden of proof regarding the necessity of their request. Trade fairs in particular are often the starting point for patent law disputes. As discussed, the Court of Appeal here requires proof that the specifically challenged product will actually be or is being exhibited.
II. UPC_CoA_523/2024, 03.03.2025 – Risk of first infringement
In further proceedings, the applicant was able to obtain a preliminary injunction against a competitor and its herbicide. The Court of Appeal confirmed the injunction. The special feature of the case was that the applicant was seeking an injunction in all countries in which its European patent had been validated, but the respondent had not yet been able to obtain official approval for its weedkiller in all of these countries.
In previous decisions (CFI_165/2024 and CFI_166/2024 of 06.09.2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division had ruled that there was no risk of first infringement if there was not yet a marketing authorization for a pharmaceutical product. However, this should always be considered on the basis of an overall assessment of the individual case.
And indeed, the current decision of the Court of Appeal distinguishes as there was already a marketing authorization at least in individual states of the UPC area. Therefore, there was a risk that such market authorizations could be granted for further EPG states in the future and that distribution would be expanded.
The decision thus fits into the existing case law. It is practice-oriented and offers patent proprietors the protection they expect from a multinational court, as the legal examination does not end at national borders. Since the problem of the risk of first infringement in the absence of market authorization often arises with pharmaceutical products, the practitioner can remember the keyword “risk of infection” here. Market authorization in individual validation states is sufficient to infect others with the risk of first-time use.
III. UPC_CoA_382/2024 14.02.2025 – General ruling and information
In the last decision discussed here, the Court of Appeal confirmed a so-called general injunction. The respondent was ordered to refrain from all patent-infringing acts, even though no patent-infringing products had been manufactured in Germany to date. This approach is, for example, foreign to the national courts in Germany, which only assume the risk of first infringement and repetition for acts that have already occurred, are imminent or occur downstream in the distribution chain. Accordingly, production is therefore not usually prohibited if only distribution has taken place to date.
The Court of Appeal is thus following the example of British and Dutch courts, which are familiar with such a general injunction of any kind for first-time infringements. It therefore comes as no surprise that the decision was made by the Court of Appeal’s second panel, chaired by Rian Kalden from the Netherlands, following the first-instance decision by the local division in The Hague.
The decision also confirms that applicants can also obtain information under Art. 67 UPCA in interim proceedings in order to uncover further distribution channels. However, the Court of Appeal makes clearifies that this should not generally include price information. This is primarily relevant for the determination of damages following the main proceedings.
For German practitioners in particular, this means a change of wind. Section 140b (3) in conjunction with (7) German Patent Act does not grant the court any discretion (“must provide information”). Subsequently, German courts have also ordered the respondent to provide price information by way of interim injunctions.
For this reason, Section 140b German Patent Act is regarded by parts of the literature as a transposition error of the Enforcement Directive (see for example: Ann, 22nd edition, § 35, para. 105). It seems unfair to provide the patent proprietor with price information that enables them to make offers that distort competition, even though the patent infringement has not yet been established in the main proceedings.
The Unified Patent Court does not continue to do so and exercises its discretion under Art. 67 UPCA in a textbook manner.
Latest News.
On the territorial scope of injunctive relief and the burden of demonstration and proof for the complainant (R. 13m RoP and R. 171.1 RoP), Local Division Paris, decision of 24 April 2025, UPC_CFI_440/2023)
In proceedings concerning an infringement action, the Local Division of Paris had to deal with the question of the claimant’s burden of demonstration and proof with regard to the defendant’s acts of infringement in individual UPC-States.
Facts of the case
The subject of the proceedings was a complaint against a French company belonging to a European distribution group. It distributes UVC LED chips in France, which the claimant considers to be patent infringing. The defendant’s manufacturer and supplier, a company incorporated under Korean law, joined the lawsuit at the defendant’s application. The claimant is the owner of the patent in suit. It applied for an injunction for the French, German, Dutch and British territories. The claimant demonstrated the infringing behaviour in France by submitting a screenshot of the French sales page. It also made a test purchase in France via the French website. The defendant did not contest the act of infringement as such for any of the UPC-States covered by the claim.
Decision of the Local Division
The Local Division found patent infringement and ordered the defendant, inter alia, to cease and desist. However, the injunctive relief was only limited to the territory of France, while the Local Division dismissed the application for an injunctive rekuef with regard to Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom.
The Local Division based its partial dismissal of the action on the lack of substantiation of the infringing acts for Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. According to R. 13m RoP and R. 171.1 RoP, it was incumbent on the claimant to provide evidence of all facts relating to the alleged infringing acts. However, the claimant has only made a test purchase in France, but not for the other UPC States applied for and the United Kingdom. The website extracts submitted by the claimant show a sectorisation of the sales territories. Thus, the claimant has not demonstrated and proven that acts of infringement are also carried out by the defendant in the three other countries. Although it is a European distribution group as a whole, the claimant has only taken action against the French defendant.
Conclusion
The decision of the Local Division Paris is surprising. It contradicts Art. 34 UPCA, according to which, in the case of a European patent, the decision applies to the territory of those Contracting Member States for which the European patent has effect (see also: Court of Appeal, decision dated 30 April 2025, UPC_CoA_768/2024 para. 124 et seq.). This is because if the product infringes the patent in suit, this is regularly the case in all UPC-States. It is precisely the outstanding advantage of the Unified Patent Court that courts have comprehensive cognizance. An exception is only made if certain circumstances justify this. It is possible that the Local Division Paris has assumed such an exception here because the claimant – despite an undisputedly existing distribution network – has limited itself to only one company in the European distribution group. However, there are no further considerations in this regard. Moreover, it appears to be the wrong starting point, as the claimant’s unsuccessful choice of the defendants would not have any binding effect on the other companies, but only the French company would no longer be allowed to distribute the products. For all other actual sales in the other countries applied for, the claimant would simply have had to file a new complaint. Against this background, an exception to Art. 34 UPCA does not appear to be expedient in this case.
The Local Division Paris based its decision on R. 13m RoP and R. 171.1 RoP. The claimant had failed to fulfil its burden of demonstration and proof because it had not set out the acts of infringement separately for each UPC-State. However, such an interpretation of the rules of evidence contradicts the principle outlined above. This is all the more true as the defendant has not disputed the acts of infringement for the other states. It would therefore have been more stringent and also more economical in terms of procedure if the Local Division had granted injunctive relief for all the states applied for and resolved the obvious problem of the wrong choice of defendant via the inter partes effect of the judgement.
Latest News.
Twice the Impact – Kather Augenstein wins big at the Managing IP EMEA Awards 2025
Kather Augenstein was honoured with two awards at the 20th Managing IP EMEA Awards 2025 in London – “Impact Case of the Year Europe – Panasonic v OPPO (2024)” and “Impact Case of the Year Europe – Mammut Sports Group v Ortovox Sportartikel (2024)” – reaffirming its position as one of the leading law firms in European IP law.
Miriam Kiefer LL.M., Managing Partner at Kather Augenstein, comments on the awards: “With our outstanding team, we successfully led the landmark case Panasonic v OPPO before the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Having succeeded for Panasonic with the first SEP/FRAND case before the UPC is a significant milestone – for our boutique law firm as well as for European patent law in general. We also made history with Ortovox v Mammut. For Ortovox we obtained the first ex-parte preliminary injunction before the UPC, which was confirmed on appeal. These successes confirm our position as one of the leading law firms before the UPC.”
Receiving these awards is a meaningful recognition of our work and commitment. We sincerely thank our clients, peers and everyone who supports us.
Each year, the Managing IP EMEA Awards recognise those in-house teams, law firms and attorneys who are largely responsible for the most innovative and challenging IP work in the past year, as well as those who are driving the international market forward.
Background on the two cases:
On November 22, 2024, the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued a landmark decision in Panasonic v. Oppo, addressing alleged infringement of a 4G Standard Essential Patent (SEP), see .This was the UPC’s first comprehensive ruling on FRAND licensing obligations under European patent and competition law, setting a key precedent for future SEP cases. In its Panasonic campaign, Kather Augenstein cooperated with patent attorneys of rcp patent and Colonia Patent.
Ortovox has won its case at the UPC Court of Appeal, which upheld a sales ban on Mammut’s avalanche rescue devices in Austria and Germany, see. This marks the first time a company has successfully enforced a preliminary injunction (PI) at both UPC instances for Ortovox. Kather Augenstein cooperated with Hofstetter Schurack patent attorneys.
Further background information about Managing IP Awards can be found here.