Handelsblatt and Best Lawyers have honored “Germany’s Best Lawyers 2025” and we are very pleased to have been mentioned here again. This award is based on surveys of commercial lawyers, so we would like to thank all our colleagues who have recommended us so highly.
Click here for the article.

We are delighted to announce that our partner Dr. Peter Klein has obtained the European Patent Litigation Certificate issued by the University of Maastricht in cooperation with the Academy of European Law (ERA) in Trier. This includes an extensive practical and theoretical training in the law underlying the Unified Patent Court (#UPC) and related fields of European law so that he is well prepared for representing clients in all proceedings before the Unified Patent Court.

Good news for Prüfer & Partner!

We have been listed in the Chambers & Partners ranking! We are grateful to have received this award in recognition of excellence in IP law, as it demonstrates our commitment and the quality of our work and reflects the strong trust our clients place in us.

The Chambers & Partners ranking is recognized worldwide as it is based exclusively on independent research and feedback from clients and peers.

This success is therefore not only a credit to the passion of all of our firm’s employees, but also a testament to the solid relationships with our clients and partners who have been instrumental in helping us getting here.

We would therefore like to thank our clients for their positive feedback and our employees for their passion and tireless efforts. This recognition motivates us to constantly strive for the best service and to meet the needs of our clients with the highest level of commitment.

We are therefore optimistic about the future, even though we are currently experiencing uncertain times and the development of the global economy resembles a rollercoaster ride. We are ready for the challenges ahead!

We are delighted to have been ranked again this year as “Leading Firm 2025” in Germany in the categories “Patent Prosecution” and “Patent Litigation” by LEGAL 500. Thanks to a strong team, we were able to win this special award.

A special thank you goes out to our clients and colleagues for the great recommendations of our firm:

‘In my eyes, the professional expertise with all the technical support is fantastically positioned and gives me a very good, consistent feeling of information.’

‘The overall level of their service is excellent. Their response is always very quick and appropriate and their ability to understand and analyze legal and technical issues is sufficiently high.’

‘The team is highly qualified and very agile. The interaction with colleagues is also very pleasant on a human level. Communication is fluid and very transparent, both in terms of cost structure and with regard to practical feasibility and the next steps. We are very satisfied with the cooperation with our colleagues.’

The ranking can be seen here.

Standard essential patents, or SEPs for short, are essential for the implementation of certain technology standards in products such as smartphones and vehicles. SEP holders are obliged to grant licenses on fair, reasonable and non-discriminatory (so-called “FRAND”) terms. It is therefore not surprising that for years there have been frequent legal disputes regarding the licensing obligation and, in particular, the conditions, i.e. the amount of the license fees. As a result, a middle ground has been sought for years to find an amicable and satisfying solution for both sides, i.e. licensor and licensee.

As early as 2022, there was a proposal to form so-called LNGs, Licensing Negotiating Groups, which can be seen as a kind of cooperative purchasing group for licenses from SEPs, in order to make license negotiations more efficient by reducing the number of necessary negotiations and thus lowering transaction costs.

After the European Commission had in principle endorsed the proposal of these LNGs as a possible approach and issued corresponding guidelines for them, the German Federal Cartel Office (FCO) has now officially accepted the establishment of the ‘Automotive Licensing Negotiation Group’ (ALNG). The ALNG is a cooperation initiative between BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Thyssenkrupp and VW. The aim is to enable the participating companies to jointly negotiate licenses for standard-essential patents (SEP) required for the implementation of technologies such as 4G or 5G in vehicles.

The FCO came to this conclusion after examining the proposal in accordance with §§ 1, 2 GWB in conjunction with § 32c(2) GWB and Article 101 TFEU. Andreas Mundt, the President of the FCO, emphasized that the cooperation is breaking new ground in terms of antitrust law and that the toleration of the ALNG is subject to the following conditions (see FCO press release dated June 10, 2024):

• Market shares: For joint procurement measures (e.g. joint license negotiations), European competition law sets a threshold of 15% for the joint market share. If this threshold is not exceeded, it is assumed that the members of the purchasing group do not have so much market power that their efforts restrict competition. It is important to note that the threshold applies to both the purchasing/licensing market and the downstream market for the sale of end products.
  In the case of ALNG, the FCO assumed that the combined market share of the (current and potential future) participants in the licensing of general mobile communications technologies will not exceed 15%, while this threshold may be exceeded in the licensing of automotive-specific SEPs. Accordingly, the ALNG is explicitly limited to the licensing of non-automotive standards, in this case specifically general mobile SEPs.
  As regards the downstream markets for the sale of final products (motor vehicles), the FCO considers the threshold at least partially to be exceeded. However, since the costs for licensing SEPs in the area of general mobile communications technologies are comparatively low (regularly less than 1% of the total production costs of a motor vehicle), the FCO concluded that a restriction of competition is also unlikely in these markets.
• Openness: The FCO also considered it necessary and therefore required that the ALNG remain open to providers that could also be entitled to and interested in licensing the respective SEPs.
• Voluntary negotiations: The FCO required the ALNG members to also offer bilateral negotiations with SEP holders and patent pools in order to further mitigate the possible effects of bundling of buyer power.
• Measures to limit information exchange: In order to prevent the exchange of competitively sensitive information between ALNG members, the FCO required the implementation of precautionary organizational measures, which the ALNG had offered earlier. These measures are designed to limit the exchange of information to what is strictly necessary for the joint licensing efforts.
• Notification of future changes: Finally, the FCO required the ALNG to notify it of any future expansion of the scope of activities and any other material changes.

The establishment of licensing negotiation groups (LNGs) such as the ALNG is a relatively new development in the market. While the ALNG emphasizes the advantages of such cooperation, licensors express concerns that such groups could shift bargaining power to their disadvantage. However, the FCO has decided that the ALNG in its planned form does not raise any serious competition concerns as long as the established framework conditions are adhered to.

So far, the ALNG appears to be the only “buying syndicate” for FRAND licenses. In the future, however, smaller SMEs could also join forces to form such LNGs in order to negotiate more cost-efficiently lower-priced FRAND licenses with SEP holders or SEP pools, not only in the 4G/5G/6G area, but in all areas in which standards have been developed, such as IoT, robotics, coding, etc.

However, it remains to be seen whether further LNGs will be formed, following the example of the ALNG and relying on its toleration by the FCO. Critical voices see the FCO’s market definition as too broad, for example, or see a loss of time and efficiency due to the possibility of (downstream) bilateral negotiations between individual ALNG members and SEP holders.

On 1 September 2024, ROMANIA will become the 18th member state of the UPC. The ratification of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) was signed on 31 May 2024. The whole article can be read here.

Before the Paris Local Division, in a case where the defendant had forced an intervener into the proceedings pursuant to Rule 316A RoP (forced intervention), the intervener has obtained a period of one month for filing its Application to Intervene as well as for filing its Statement in Intervention. Contrary to Rule 316.2 RoP, which mentions a “further period” for filing the Statement in Intervention, the Court did not set any such further period.

Incidentally, the intervener’s one-month period for filing its Application to Intervene and its Statement in Intervention expired on March 19, 2024, which is almost identical to the end of the defendant’s three-month period for filing its Statement of Defence (March 18, 2024). The defendant’s Statement of Defence did not include a counterclaim for revocation of the patent.

The Court held that the intervener may not develop claims contrary to those of the party he supports and may not autonomously develop claims and procedural modalities different from those offered to the party it supports. Therefore, since the defendant’s term for filing a counterclaim also applies to the intervener, the intervener is not entitled to pose an own counterclaim after that term has expired. It would appear that, although not expressly stated, the Court considered that, in principle, an own counterclaim of the intervenient is admissible, albeit subject to the defendant’s terms.

In addition, the Court again rejected a request to change the language of the proceedings from French to English even though the language of the patent in question is English and the defendant itself, a French company and the only French party involved, previously and unsuccessfully had requested a change of the language of the proceedings from French to English. This shows that the bar for changing the language is very high.

Case number UPC_CFI_440/2023, order date May 6, 2024

In our view, the Court did not take sufficient account of the situation of the forced intervention. It is already challenging to set up a properly researched counterclaim of revocation within the three months granted to the defendant. To do so within one month could be considered outright impossible, especially as cooperation in a forced intervention cannot be expected. A corresponding obligation for the short term raises constitutional concerns.

Still, the possibility of a separate revocation action remains.

We are delighted to have been ranked again this year as “Leading Firm 2024” in Germany as well as in Europe, Middle East & Africa (EMEA) in the categories “Patent Prosecution” and “Patent Litigation” by LEGAL 500. Thanks to a strong team, we were able to win these special awards.

A special thank you goes out to our clients and colleagues for the great recommendations of our firm:

‘The Prufer team works hand in hand both internally and externally with colleagues in an exemplary manner. They perfectly pass the ball to each other.’

‘Internally, cross-disciplinary questions are discussed quickly and easily and feedback is given. Questions are recorded and answered, regardless of who you ask and whether the contact is an expert or not.’

‘The advice is given on what is best for the client and not on what the client wants to hear.’

‘The overall level of service is excellent. Response is always very quick and appropriate and the ability to understand and analyse legal and technical issues is sufficiently high.’

The ranking can be seen here.

The first decisions of the UPC have been handed down, and it will be exciting to learn the position of the UPC regarding the much-discussed issues of claim interpretation, the burden of presentation and proof for facts, and also regarding inventive step considerations.

1. Claim interpretation – introduction and comparison with the EPO

It is an ongoing debate in proceedings before the EPO, to what extent the description should be considered for claim interpretation, and the underlying legal basis, if any.

In decision T 1473/19, the Board of Appeal (BoA) came to the conclusion that Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with Art. 1 of the Protocol for its interpretation can be relied upon regarding claim interpretation and determining the claims’ scope, both in examination proceedings and in opposition proceedings. Further, although according to Art. 69 EPC, 2nd sentence, description and drawings shall be used to interpret the claims, there is still the primacy of the claims (1st sentence of Art. 69 EPC, according to which the extent of the protection covered by a European patent or patent application shall be determined by the claims), which sets the limits for interpreting claim features.
It was further decided that the description may additionally be consulted to further interpret the claim, even if the claim is clear from itself.
However, as an unambiguous (clear) claim wording must be given priority over the description for interpretation of claim features because of the “primacy of the claims”-principle, consulting the description for claim interpretation is eventually only possible for ambiguous claim features.
In T 0169/20, the Board concluded that the provisions of Art. 84 EPC, particularly 2nd sentence of Art. 84 EPC, and Rules 42 and 43 EPC provided an adequate legal basis for claim interpretation when assessing patentability. Art. 69 EPC was only used to determine the scope of protection for the purpose of examining conformity with Art. 123(3) EPC, and in infringement proceedings (contrary to T 1473/19). The Board further concluded that “if the wording of a claim is clear and technically reasonable in itself, it is neither necessary nor justified to interpret it in the light of the description. In particular, the support of the description should not be used for restricting or modifying the subject-matter of the invention beyond what a skilled person would understand when reading the wording of the claims, for example by excluding interpretations which are both reasonable and technically sensible within the relevant technical context.“ (underlining added).

In summary, although both exemplary decisions of the Boards of Appeal of the EPO apply a different legal basis (Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with Art. 1 of the Protocol thereto, and Art. 84 EPC in combination with Rules 42 and 43 EPC), the outcome is similar: It is the wording of the claims which defines the claimed subject-matter, and the description may only be used to interpret ambiguous features.

Now the UPC handed down the first orders, and it will be interesting to see the position of the UPC regarding claim interpretation:

In decision UPC_CoA_335/2023 (rectified), the Court of Appeal (CoA) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) decided that “the patent claim is not only the starting point, but the decisive basis for determining the protective scope of a European patent under Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC.” (Headnote 2, 1st sentence). Further, the CoA of the UPC came to the remarkable conclusion that “the description and the drawings must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim and not only to resolve any ambiguities in the patent claim.” (emphasis added; Grounds for the Order, 5.d) aa); 3rd paragraph). This is different from the position of the EPO’s BoA, which held that consulting the description for claim interpretation is only possible for ambiguous claim features. The CoA of the UPC further stated that it is the aim of the claim interpretation to “combine adequate protection for the patent proprietor with sufficient legal certainty for third parties.” (Grounds for the Order, 5.d) aa), 6th paragraph).
In decision UPC_CoA_335/2023, the CoA held that some of the features of claim 1 required interpretation, such as the feature “cell or tissue sample”. This point was actually relevant in the court proceedings, because interpreting this feature was relevant in assessing substantive patentability, notably by questioning: can a sample extracted from a cell or tissue but bound to a support be considered as the claimed “cell or tissue sample”? According to the CoA, the feature required that a cell or tissue sample is to be understood as a sample which is still recognisable as a cell or tissue. Additionally, the CoA additionally consulted the description which supported this understanding.

To sum up, the CoA of the UPC takes the position that based on Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC the description must always be considered for claim interpretation, not only if claim features are ambiguous.

2. The burden of presentation and proof for facts in preliminary injunctions

Pursuant to Rule 205 et seq. RoP, the order for provisional measures is issued by way of summary proceedings (commonly also referred to as preliminary injunction (PI) proceedings) in which the opportunities for parties to present facts and evidence is limited.
Up to now, national law and practice on PI proceedings were quite distinct among European countries, and even in German practice there was no harmonized approach [1].

According to the CoA, on the one hand, the standard of proof must not be set too high, in order to avoid irreparable harm to the patent proprietor that can result from delay, but on the other hand, it must not be set too low in order to prevent the defendant from being harmed by an order for provisional measure that is revoked at a later date.

According to R. 211.2 RoP, the applicant may be “required to provide reasonable evidence to satisfy the Court with a sufficient degree of certainty that the applicant is entitled to commence proceedings pursuant to Article 47, that the patent in question is valid and that his right is being infringed, or that such infringement is imminent.”

The CoA now held that such a “sufficient degree of certainty requires that the court considers it at least more likely than not that the Applicant is entitled to initiate proceedings and that the patent is infringed. A sufficient degree of certainty is lacking if the court considers it on the balance of probabilities to be more likely than not that the patent is not valid.” (Grounds for the Order, 5. a) 4th paragraph).

Hence, the CoA for the UPC ruled a “balance of probability“ assessment. In case it is more likely that a patent is invalid, a PI shall fail. This concept boils down to the “simple” question: is it more likely that the patent is held not novel or not inventive? In this case, the UP court shall not grant a PI in patent infringement proceedings.
This decision hence provides a common standard under the UPC, distinct from various conflicting decision among national courts.

3. Inventive step considerations before the UPC

In the case at issue, UPC_CoA_335/2023, the CoA came to the conclusion that it is more likely than not that the subject-matter of claim 1 will prove to be obvious. Interestingly, by this decision the CoA overruled the opposite finding of the court of first instance on that part.

The CoA based its conclusion on the finding that the only difference between the relevant prior art document D6 and claim 1 was that D6 did not disclose the feature that the method of claim 1 is intended to detect a plurality of analytes in a cell or tissue sample. Rather, D6 disclosed a method that was intended to detect “amplified DNA molecules” (ASMs), which were not present in a cell or tissue sample, and which would not be regarded by a skilled person as a cell or tissue sample within the meaning of the patent. Hence, novelty was acknowledged.
Regarding inventive step, the CoA further stated that a skilled person seeking to develop high-throughput optical multiplexing methods for detecting target molecules in a sample would have considered D6, as this document disclosed a method for detecting a plurality of ASMs. Starting from this document and having in mind that at the priority date there was a demand for multiplex analysis techniques, a skilled person would also consider transferring the method of D6 to an in situ environment, as evidenced by a further document (B30). Remarkably, in the reasoning why a skilled person, being confronted with difficulties, would not have been prevented from carrying out tests due to insufficient prospects of success, the CoA refers to the Swedish Intellectual Property Office Consulting Report (B10, p. 5).
The CoA concludes that it is more likely than not that the patent at issue will prove to be invalid in proceedings on the merits due to a lack of inventive step and rules that there is no sufficient basis for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.

Take home message:

• Based on Art. 69 EPC in conjunction with the Protocol on the Interpretation of Art. 69 EPC, the CoA ruled that the description and drawing must always be used as explanatory aids for the interpretation of the patent claim, not only to resolve ambiguities in the claim
• A “sufficient degree of certainty” requires that the CoA considers something “to be at least more likely than not”, on the balance of probabilities
• It appears that the CoA did not require the same level of “reasonable expectation of success”/motivation for solving the posed problem as the EPO in order that the claimed subject-matter is considered obvious. It remains to be seen whether the UPC will tend towards a more “German” approach where the skilled person usually requires less motivation for modifying prior art [2].

[1] GRUR 2022, 811 – Phoenix Contact/Harting
Munich District Court:
Decisions of September 29, 2022, Az. 7 O 4716/22; and October 27, 2022, Az. 7 O 10295/22:
European patents and also the German parts of European patents are presumed to be valid from the date of publication of their grant
Düsseldorf District Court:
Decision of September 22, 2022, Az. 4 b O 54/22:
Questions presumption of validity of European patents and also the German part thereof

[2] German Supreme Court, BGH – Fulvestrant (X ZR 59/17; Headnotes)