Our free IP seminar in Munich offers practical insights into patent law, trade mark law and soft IP. The seminar is divided into two modules and is designed for companies seeking guidance on the protection and enforcement of intellectual property rights.
“The firm has advised us in numerous strategic cases for our clients […]. We greatly appreciate the depth and breadth of this experience, which gives us strong confidence in the quality and reliability of their IP dispute support.”
“The team has in-depth knowledge in the IP field and is always willing to share clear, practical advice, which makes them an absolute pleasure to work with. They are professional, proactive, and attentive to detail, and they handle issues accurately.”
“[Christoph Angerhausen] truly deserves to be recognized for his outstanding expertise and contribution to the field of patent.”
These are the assessments of clients and peers regarding BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT, as published in the latest ranking of the IP guide “IP Stars”.
The patent and trademark teams also have reason to celebrate the jury’s decision, as the firm has once again been ranked among Germany’s top five law firms this year, receiving Tier 1 distinctions in the categories “Patent Prosecution” and “Trademark – Patent & Trademark Attorney Firms”.
With a strong second-place finish, the jury recognizes the achievements of the patent litigation team and specifically highlights the firm in the “Copyright & Related Rights” category.
In recognition of BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT’s outstanding rankings over more than ten years, IP Stars has awarded the firm a special seal of approval.
In addition, Christian W. Appelt, Dr. Thomas L. Bittner and Dr. Markus Engelhard have been named “Patent star 2026″, while Dr. Lars Eggersdorfer received the “Rising star 2026” designation. Special recognition is also given to Peter Gross, Dr. Carl-Richard Haarmann, and Dr. Volker Schmitz-Fohrmann as “Trade mark stars 2026”, as well as Prof. Dr. Heinz Goddar as a „Notable practitioner 2026“.
In conjunction with the award winners, the following attorneys receive an honorable mention: Dr. Sebastian Engels, Silke Freund, Dr. Daniel Herrmann, Dr. Ute Kilger, Dr. Andreas Lucke, Dr. Karl-Heinz Metten, Dr. Michael Rüberg, and Dr. Martin Schaefer.
IP STARS is – according to its own statements – the leading guide for law firms and practitioners in the field of intellectual property worldwide. The first directory was published as early as 1994. The IP STARS rankings are based on information provided by thousands of companies, IP specialists, and their clients, as well as interviews, online surveys, and independent research. The evaluation criteria include expertise, workload, market reputation, track record, results achieved for clients, and unique strengths in the respective practice area. The analysis is impartial; the IP STARS team of experts compiles its rankings solely on the basis of performance.
The specialist magazine The Patent Lawyer has once again included BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT in its ranking of leading patent law firms in Europe and the United Kingdom. The firm is listed among the top 10 patent law firms in Germany for 2026.
In its assessment, The Patent Lawyer highlights BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT’s reinforced leadership in German IP law. In particular, the magazine refers to the firm’s role in securing European patents for LG Chem and LG Energy Solution in connection with safety-reinforced separators used in lithium-ion batteries. It also points to the firm’s six German offices, its international offices in Alicante, Paris, and Shanghai, and BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT’s team of more than 60 specialists. This strong setup allows the firm to advise and represent an international client base across a broad range of patent-related matters, including patent prosecution, EPO opposition proceedings, UPC representation, and complex portfolio management.
According to The Patent Lawyer, the ranking is based on a multi-layered methodology that includes industry research as well as feedback from readers, clients, and international contacts.
On September 24, 2026, our IP seminar series will once again take place at Industrie-Club Bremen. Participants can look forward to a varied program with practice-oriented presentations on patent and trade mark law, as well as many opportunities for exchange in a pleasant atmosphere. We look forward to welcoming you there!
Join us for our IP seminar on September 22 at LENKWERK Bielefeld. The program offers valuable insights into patent law and trade mark law (Soft IP), along with inspiring conversations in a unique event location that will delight not only classic car enthusiasts. We look forward to welcoming you!
The U.S.-based legal publishing firm “Best Lawyers” has once again awarded the title “Best Lawyers in Germany” to numerous BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT patent attorneys and attorneys at law this year.
Dr. Martin Schaefer has been honored for the third time – following his 2024 and 2025 recognition – with the title “Lawyer of the Year 2027” in the “Entertainment Law” category.
Three attorneys from the next generation are also highlighted by the jury: The attorneys at law Dr. Alexander Thamer and Dr. Julian Wernicke, both based in Berlin, have been named “Ones to Watch in Germany 2027” in the field of “Intellectual Property,” as has Dr. Lars Eggersdorfer in Munich in the categories “Intellectual Property” and “Litigation.”
Christoph Angerhausen, Dusseldorf, Intellectual Property Law
Christian W. Appelt, Munich, Intellectual Property Law & Patent Attorney
Dr. Thomas Bittner, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Rudolf Böckenholt, Bremen, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Andreas Dustmann, Berlin, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Lars Eggersdorfer, Munich, Intellectual Property Law & Litigation (Ones to Watch in Germany 2027)
Dr. Markus Engelhard, Munich, Intellectual Property Law & Pharmaceuticals Law
Dr. Sebastian Engels, Berlin, Intellectual Property Law
Silke Freund, Munich, Intellectual Property Law & Media Law
Prof. Dr. Heinz Goddar, Munich, Intellectual Property Law, Patent Attorney & Pharmaceuticals Law
Peter Gross, Munich, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Carl-Richard Haarmann, Munich, Intellectual Property Law & Litigation
Dr. Ute Kilger, Berlin, Biotechnology Law & Life Sciences Practice
Dr. Ludwig Kouker, Bremen, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Karl-Heinz Metten, Frankfurt, Intellectual Property Law
Malte Nentwig, Bremen, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Eckhard Ratjen, Bremen, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Michael Rüberg, Dusseldorf, Munich, Paris, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Martin Schaefer, Berlin, Entertainment Law, Intellectual Property Law, Media Law (Lawyer of the Year 2027)
Dr. Sebastian Schlegel, Berlin, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Steffen Schmidt, Munich, Intellectual Property Law
Dr. Alexander Thamer, Berlin, Intellectual Property Law (Ones to Watch in Germany 2027)
Dr. Julian Wernicke, Berlin, Intellectual Property Law (Ones to Watch in Germany 2027)
Dr. Martin Wirtz, Berlin, Intellectual Property Law
According to its own information, Best Lawyers is the oldest and most renowned ranking service for lawyers worldwide. The peer review process is used to select the award-winning lawyers. The ratings are based on survey results from leading lawyers in a geographical area and a defined legal practice area. The ranking by the US specialist publisher is also published annually in Handelsblatt, albeit with the current year’s number.
The list of award-winning BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorneys is available on the website of the US specialist magazine “Best Lawyers” and online in the business magazine Handelsblatt (in German).
Technical Board of Appeal 3.3.05 of the European Patent Office has referred a fundamental question of claim interpretation to the Enlarged Board of Appeal. The referral, pending as G 1/26 (“Coated steel strips”), concerns the role the description plays when assessing added subject-matter.
The referral asks how far the description may be used when interpreting a claim. The Enlarged Board addressed this question in G 1/24, but did so in the context of patentability. G 1/26 raises the same question in a different context: added subject-matter under Article 123(2) EPC. The issue is which of a claim’s possible interpretations must be tested against the original disclosure.
The referral arises from an opposition against a European patent for coated steel strips (EP 3 587 104), which originated from a second-generation divisional application. The disputed feature is a titanium-to-nitrogen ratio. Claim 1 as granted requires the ratio to be “in excess of 3.42”, with no unit specified. However, the description — like the parent and grandparent applications — defines the ratio by weight. The opponent argues that omitting the unit broadened the claim beyond what was originally disclosed.
The Board identifies three approaches in the case law following G1/24 on how the description is used in claim interpretation. In the case at hand, these three approaches lead to two different outcomes.
Under this approach, the description merely serves to establish the technical field and the common general knowledge. Read that way, the disputed ratio could be a molar ratio. Since this possibility was not originally disclosed, there would be added subject-matter; Article 123(2) EPC would be infringed.
Here too, the unitless ratio covers a molar ratio as a possible reading, resulting in added subject-matter and an infringement of Article 123(2) EPC.
This approach allows the specification to narrow the claim. Since the relevant passages of the description define the ratio by weight, the feature is interpreted narrowly as a weight ratio. Under this approach, Article 123(2) EPC is satisfied.
The Board also refers a separate question on the admissibility of referrals. In its view, a referral should be admissible where the point of law arises from the case and it is procedurally reasonable to decide that point first. What should not be required is ruling out every other objection to the patent beforehand.
The referral concerns a fundamental question of everyday patent practice. How a claim is to be construed, and which readings must find support in the original disclosure, often decides whether a patent survives. If the Enlarged Board finds the referral admissible, its answer will shape examination and opposition practice before the EPO. The proceedings will be worth following closely.
The full wording of the referred questions is available on the website of the European Patent Office. Closely linked to the questions raised here is referral G 1/25 on description adaptation, which addresses whether and to what extent the description must be aligned with amended patent claims.
In its decision of 2 June 2026 in Fujifilm v Kodak (UPC_CoA_312/2025, UPC_CoA_333/2025, UPC_CoA_880/2025 and UPC_CoA_882/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal further developed the practical framework for claims concerning non-UPC designations of European patents.
The starting point is no longer whether the UPC may, in principle, deal with such claims. Following the CJEU’s decision in BSH v Electrolux and the subsequent UPC case law, this question has largely been answered. The more relevant issue is how such claims are to be assessed once relief extending beyond UPC territory is sought.
For a discussion of the foundations laid by BSH v Electrolux and the first UPC decisions applying that judgment, we refer to our earlier articles:
The case arose from proceedings between Fujifilm and Kodak concerning printing plate technology. The Mannheim Local Division had granted Fujifilm injunctive relief, including relief extending to the United Kingdom.
Kodak appealed. While the Court of Appeal ultimately set aside the injunction, the broader significance of the decision lies less in the outcome of the preliminary injunction proceedings and more in the Court’s treatment of long-arm claims generally.
The judgment demonstrates that, once jurisdiction has been established, claimants remain subject to strict requirements regarding proof, attribution and the applicable foreign law.
The decision demonstrates that long-arm litigation before the UPC is increasingly developing into a distinct procedural framework. Rather than focusing exclusively on jurisdiction, the Court addresses a broader set of questions that arise once claims concerning non-UPC patent designations are brought before the UPC.
The Court’s reasoning suggests that at least four issues must be analysed separately:
This structured approach is likely to influence future long-arm cases beyond the specific facts of the Kodak dispute.
One of the important practical messages concerns proof of infringement.
The Court appears unwilling to infer infringement in a non-UPC territory merely because comparable acts have been established within UPC territory. Rather, the claimant must establish the relevant acts in the foreign state and demonstrate why those acts satisfy the applicable legal requirements.
This maintains the evidentiary burden in long-arm cases and underlines that jurisdiction does not create any presumption in favour of infringement.
The decision also highlights the importance of attribution, particularly in disputes involving corporate groups.
The Court’s reasoning suggests that activities carried out by one group company cannot automatically be attributed to another entity merely because both belong to the same corporate structure.
Claimants seeking extra-territorial relief must therefore carefully establish the role of each defendant and the connection between the alleged foreign acts and the specific entity against whom relief is sought.
The decision further confirms that foreign law remains relevant in long-arm litigation and may be decisive to the outcome of the case.
At the same time, the Court did not address the extent to which parties may proceed on the basis that the laws of EPC states lead to materially similar results unless specific differences are identified by the opposing party. Certain first-instance UPC decisions have adopted approaches that reduce the need for extensive proof of foreign law unless concrete divergences are raised. The Court of Appeal neither endorsed nor rejected such approaches.
The requirements for pleading and proving foreign law therefore remain an evolving aspect of UPC long-arm litigation.
As the Kodak proceedings illustrate, a claimant may overcome jurisdictional objections and still fail because the substantive requirements of the applicable law have not been met.
The decision marks an important shift from jurisdictional theory to jurisdictional application.
For claimants, the focus will increasingly be on proving foreign acts, identifying the responsible entities and addressing issues of foreign law.
For defendants, the judgment confirms that even where jurisdiction itself is difficult to challenge, substantial defences remain available, including challenges based on attribution, proof and applicable national law.
The Court of Appeal therefore appears to be moving long-arm litigation away from abstract jurisdictional debates and towards a more conventional merits-based analysis.
The significance of Fujifilm v Kodak lies less in the outcome of the preliminary injunction proceedings and more in the guidance it provides for future long-arm litigation.
The Court of Appeal confirms that the discussion has moved beyond the question whether the UPC may hear claims relating to non-UPC patent designations. The more important question is how such claims are to be assessed.
By emphasising the separate roles of jurisdiction, validity, attribution and foreign-law infringement analysis, the Court provides a more structured framework for future long-arm disputes. For litigants, this may ultimately prove more important than the outcome of the Kodak case itself.
With the Empowering Consumers Directive (Directive (EU) 2024/825, or EmpCo Directive for short), the European Union aims to protect consumers from misleading environmental and sustainability claims. The EmpCo Directive will become mandatory on September 27, 2026. But what actions does your company need to take in response to these requirements? What areas of action can be identified to ensure robust EmpCo compliance?
“BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT is a clear market leader. The team has in-depth knowledge of the IP field and always provides clear, practical advice, which makes them an absolute pleasure to work with. They are professional, proactive, and attentive to detail, and they handle issues accurately. The team also contribute to legislation, academia and AI tool development, and this translates into added value in their legal advice.”
This quotation marks the beginning of the IAM Patent 1000 jury’s reasoning for this year’s awards for the firm – “Gold” for Germany and, in each case, Silver for the European Patent Office (EPO) and the Unified Patent Court (UPC).
At the center of the practice, the jury continues, is a broadly positioned team for patent prosecution and nullity proceedings. The firm’s attorney-at-law patent practice receives particular recognition as well: its enforcement strength before the UPC – to which partner Dr. Michael Rüberg also contributes by coordinating international proceedings – is reflected in the Silver ranking for the UPC.
A versatile patent attorney with extensive expertise in the fields of physics, mechanical engineering, electronics and computer technology is Christian W. Appelt. He has substantial experience in drafting and prosecuting patent applications and successfully represents clients in opposition proceedings. He maintains a close, long-standing relationship with Panasonic and works directly with the client’s team in Japan.
Dr. Markus Engelhard, also a patent attorney, is active in the fields of life sciences and medical technology, according to IAM Patent 1000, oversees the entire patent portfolio of Ionsent Technologies and represents the company before the EPO as well as foreign patent offices in connection with point-of-care diagnostic technology.
As a new entrant to IAM Patent 1000, the jury highlights Dr. Daniel Herrmann. The patent attorney further strengthens the firm’s offering in the field of medical technology by advising Lohmann & Rauscher on the global management of patent portfolios and representing the client in numerous opposition, appeal, nullity and infringement proceedings, with a strong track record.
Patent attorney Dr. Andreas Lucke also makes his debut this year, according to IAM Patent 1000. Together with partner and attorney at law Dr. Michael Rüberg, he represents MED-EL in an economically significant dispute relating to hearing implant technology, coordinates an international, multi-firm enforcement strategy and leads the German proceedings against Advanced Bionics – with a favorable decision at first instance.
The jury highlights another significant case: In parallel infringement proceedings, attorney at law Dr. Carl-Richard Haarmann and patent attorney Christoph Angerhausen represent Rittal against Wöhner in the field of power distribution systems before the courts in Düsseldorf and Frankfurt – in the jury’s view, evidence of the firm’s role as a trusted advisor across Rittal’s entire portfolio.
Christoph Angerhausen is also highly valued by clients for his broad patent law expertise: “Christoph is an outstanding, well-rounded patent practitioner. His advice is consistently high quality, fast and transparent.” He supports clients in particular in the fields of engineering and physics and develops and implements successful national and international protection strategies.
The jury also praises attorney at law Dr. Sebastian Engels: He advises the technology start-up FORMIC and supports it in connection with strategic cooperation on IP reference frameworks for modular transport systems.
Overall, the jury concludes, the firm demonstrates its ongoing commitment to new technologies and innovative business models.
The IAM Patent 1000 ranking is published annually and presents the world’s leading law firms in the field of patent law. The results are based on comprehensive research conducted by IAM Patent 1000 Analytics, which analyzes the global IP industry using robust data, customizable tools, and expert insight. This creates a detailed picture of law firm performance in the areas of patent prosecution, litigation, and transactions.
BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT’s 2026 ranking can be viewed on the IAM Patent 1000 website.
You need to load content from reCAPTCHA to submit the form. Please note that doing so will share data with third-party providers.
More Information