Due to the different technical qualifications of our attorneys, we can handle inventions across a broad spectrum. Our firm is particularly active in the fields of electrical engineering, medical technology, mechanical engineering and process engineering.

In addition to the prosecution of patent and trademark applications, our firm is also known for its enforcement of the corresponding intellectual property rights in infringement and nullity proceedings.

From 2001 to 2010, for example, our law firm was involved in a patent dispute between Deutsche Telekom AG and QPSX Europe GmbH, a licensee of the Australian QPSX Communications LTD, in the field of asynchronous time division multiplex communication networks (ATM) due to alleged infringement of ITU standards I.363.3 AND I.363.5. The QPSX patent, which was contrary to our client’s interests, was successfully destroyed.

From 2007 to 2011, our law firm supported Deutsche Telekom AG in various legal disputes with CIF Licensing LLP, a subsidiary of General-Electrics concerning DSL technology. The proceedings were among the largest complexes of patent disputes in Germany and were successfully concluded.

In 2012, we succeeded in defending a patent in the field of medical technology in nullity appeal proceedings due to, among other things, the mobile design of a therapy system (BGH X ZR 88/09 – “Elektronenstrahltherapiesystem”, GRUR 2012, 475).

With the decision issued by the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf on January 3, 2013 (I-2 U 22/10 – Regenschirm), we succeeded in significantly developing the case law on patent law equivalence based on the BGH decision “Okklusionsvorrichtung” in favor of the defendant. The OLG followed our argument that equivalent infringement is ruled out if the main claim of the patent in suit only takes up one of two different variants of an assessed prior art document, but the attacked embodiment is based on the other variant.

In 2016, we succeeded in prohibiting the use of “Beautytox” and “Beautétox” based on the EU trademark “Beauty-Tox” throughout the EU at the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt/Main and at the same time enforced claims for information and damages for some EU countries. The judgment was published in GRUR 2016, 817, PharmR 2016, 250, MarkenR 2016, 325, LSK 2016, 180454 (Ls.) and BeckRS 2016, 07669 and has been widely cited in the literature (Beck Online Kommentar, Art. 1 UMV, para. 13 and para. 27a; Dr. M. Kochendörfer in GRUR 2016, 778; GRUR-RR 2016, 481) and was also discussed in connection with the decision of the Federal Court of Justice of 12.1.2017 on information claims in individual EU states (GRUR-Prax 2017, 91).