Litigation before the UPC and National Courts
We represent clients in complex patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court (UPC) — in all three official languages (English, German, and French) — as well as before German Courts (Munich, Mannheim, Düsseldorf, Karlsruhe, BPatG and BGH). Our core strength lies in a profound technical understanding across a wide range of fields, including electrical and information engineering, artificial intelligence (AI) and software, cellular communications (3G/4G/5G), consumer electronics, electrical power systems, semiconductors, life sciences, medical technologies and mechanical engineering.
In particular, with our UPC focus we specialize in validity assessment and revocation work (including counterclaims for revocation), as well as thorough technical infringement analysis. We deliver the technical backbone for infringement cases and can run the revocation track end-to-end—whether attacking or defending the patent. Depending on strategy, we act seamlessly alongside attorneys-at-law or, where appropriate, appear directly before the UPC.
Cases
Patent asserted relates to verifying the integrity of digital data blocks for content authenticity/anti-deepfake workflows. The action targets implementations around the C2PA layer and has been widely reported as one of the first significant UPC suits against a leading AI provider.
SEP dispute over LTE/5G technology related to beam management, in particular beam adjustment or refinement, for multiple transmission point base stations, when initiated by a user equipment or the base station itself.
SEP dispute over LTE/5G small-cell and multi-cell uplink control, focused on Buffer Status and Power Headroom reporting per cell. Layer/part: RAN MAC control (e.g., BSR/PHR) coordinating uplink scheduling and power control across multiple cells.
Dispute concerns smartphone multimedia UI and content display/selection on portable devices.
Dispute concerns video playback and display processing used in smartphones and related media devices.
Patent dispute concerns operation logic of tethering interfaces for rendering and navigating content on media devices.
Patent dispute related to rendering of a digital mirror, wherein a digital image is transformed based on geometrical and biometrical parameters.
SEP dispute over adding/activating secondary/serving cells to boost throughput under carrier aggregation / dual connectivity. Layer/part: RRC procedures for cell addition/activation and related configuration of serving cells in LTE/5G.
SEP dispute over configured-grant (“configured resource”) uplink transmissions enabling grant-free/semi-persistent UL from the handset for low-latency traffic. Layer/part: RAN MAC/PHY scheduling behavior for NR/LTE uplink on pre-configured resources.
Dispute relating to use of voice recognition system in network-based control of entertainment and information services, wherein user voice input is transformed into system commands to control television and/or video delivery and wherein the input is to alert the system as to a potential user input from a specific user site.
Dispute relating to validity of patents referring to gearing technology and hydraulic control systems of automotive parts whereby conflicting claim construction is decisive for validity and use
Disputes relating to patentability of gearing technology and hydraulic control systems of a supplier part whereby patentability depends substantially on claim construction.
Dispute relating to use of voice recognition system in network-based control of entertainment and information services, wherein user voice input is transformed into system commands to control television and/or video delivery.
Dispute relating to keyboard technology to avoid ambiguous user input, wherein keyboard signals are compared based on current and past keyboard inputs.
Load more cases
Disputes concern AVC/H.264 video-coding SEPs, with reports of injunction enforcement underscoring German courts’ role in codec SEP enforcement.
Disputes concern 2G/3G/4G SEPs; the appellate decision clarified FRAND principles, including transfer of undertakings when SEPs are assigned.
https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/game-over-in-unwired-planet-and-huawei-dispute-in-germany/?
Disputes concern hollow-fiber dialyzer technology; the BGH ultimately invalidated the patent (X ZR 50/23 “Hohlfaserdialysator”), mooting infringement.
Disputes concern Wi-Fi 6 SEPs.
Disputes concern 2G/3G/4G SEPs; appellate guidance clarified FRAND duties in SEP transfers.
https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/no-more-wild-west-in-sep-transfer-rules-dusseldorf-patent-court/
https://www.wipo.int/wipolex/en/judgments/details/2243
Disputes relate to signal processing and graphical user-interface technology in smartphones; culminated in BGH X ZR 144/17 (“Rotierendes Menü”) on GUI patentability and BGH X ZR 119/18 (“Aktivitätsüberwachung”).
https://www.paustian.de/bgh_rotierendes_menue/
https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&nr=105363&pos=0&anz=1
https://juris.bundesgerichtshof.de/cgi-bin/rechtsprechung/document.py?Gericht=bgh&Art=en&nr=108393&pos=0&anz=1
Dispute concerns software activation/licensing; the patent was revoked on nullity appeal (BGH X ZR 64/14 “Datengenerator”).
Disputes concern Android OS/voice-search functionality.
Dispute centers on LTE SEPs and FRAND negotiation obligations; resulted in the landmark CJEU ruling setting the EU FRAND framework.
https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=celex%3A62013CJ0170&utm
Disputes concern electrophoretic display (e-paper) technology used in e-readers; part of a broader European enforcement effort.
https://www.silicon.de/41606830/patentstreit-um-e-paper-displays-trekstor-siegt-ueber-e-ink
Disputes concern semiconductor memory technology, brought as part of a global, insolvency-driven enforcement program.
https://www.juve.de/verfahren/streit-um-qimonda-patente-teilerfolg-fur-acer-mit-bird-bird/?utm
Dispute relating to the delivery of components of a facility system manufactured in a country with patent protection relating to the system as a whole for installation of the facility system in a country without patent protection.
Dispute relating to patentability of a structurally optimized frame of a known facility system. Prior art
Dispute relating to gearing technology and hydraulic control systems of a supplier part whereby possible use depends on claim construction.
Our way of working
Tech-first litigation — We translate complex technical systems (for example RAN protocol stacks, codecs, artificial intelligence (AI) pipelines, electrical inverters, mechanical gears, turbines) into clear and convincing infringement/non-infringement and validity/invalidity narratives, with reproducible analyses and exhibits.
Boutique agility — As a small team, we work seamlessly with external legal advisors or internal litigation teams, adopt your tools and adapt to your processes and reporting practices.
In-house perspective — Several of our patent attorneys previously served in-house as litigation counsels at global tech companies, so we understand internal timelines, risk gates, and business realities in patent litigation.