Graphic highlighting the designation ‘Chambers Contributor’ for the Global Practice Guides 2026 in Patent Litigation, framed by a laurel wreath

Patent litigation in Germany: Christoph Angerhausen, Dr. Daniel Herrmann and Dr. Michael Rüberg contribute once again to the Chambers Guide

/in

Current developments and practical experience in patent litigation in Germany

In the current 2026 edition of the Chambers Patent Litigation Guide, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partners Christoph Angerhausen (Patent Attorney, Dusseldorf), Dr. Daniel Herrmann (Patent Attorney, Frankfurt) and Dr. Michael Rüberg (Attorney at Law, Munich) are once again represented as authors of the chapter “Law & Practice – Germany”.

The contribution examines key aspects of patent litigation in Germany and provides a structured overview of the legal framework and its practical application. It addresses, among other topics, recent developments in case law, procedural particularities and strategic considerations relevant to both national and international proceedings.

The Chambers Patent Litigation Guide is published annually and is regarded as one of the leading global reference works in the field of patent enforcement. Edited by Chambers and Partners, the guide offers in-depth country reports and practice-oriented insights from leading practitioners.

The English-language contribution by the three patent experts is available online on the Chambers website.

Dr. Eckhard Ratjen, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

No likelihood of confusion with descriptive root element CRAFT – Article by Dr. Eckhard Ratjen in GRUR-Prax 1/2026

/in

According to a decision by the German Federal Patent Court (BPatG), there is no likelihood of confusion between the signs TECH-CRAFT and TOOLCRAFT, even though the goods are identical.

In his article in GRUR-Prax 1/2026, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and attorney at law specializing in intellectual property, Dr. Eckhard Ratjen, discusses the BPatG decision of October 14, 2025, 26 W (pat) 526/20, GRUR-RS 2025, 33163 – TECH-CRAFT vs. TOOLCRAFT.

According to this ruling, the opposition filed by the proprietor of the EU word mark TOOLCRAFT against the registration of the word/figurative mark TECH-CRAFT in Class 8 on the grounds of likelihood of confusion was not upheld; therefore, the opponent’s appeal was unsuccessful.
The BPatG saw no likelihood of confusion between the TOOLCRAFT trademark and the younger TECH-CRAFT word/figurative mark. Although the goods (hand tools) were identical, TOOLCRAFT’s distinctiveness was considered only average because the components “TOOL” and “CRAFT” have descriptive connotations. The opponent could not prove increased distinctiveness through use due to a lack of specific information on market shares, use, and recognition. Additionally, the signs differed sufficiently in terms of sound, appearance, and meaning. Furthermore, “CRAFT” was deemed unsuitable as the root component of a trade mark family.

Dr. Eckhard Ratjen concludes his article with detailed practical advice and the conclusion that the decision of the Federal Patent Court underscores the high requirements for proving the increased distinctiveness of a trade mark and for demonstrating the existence of a series of signs and their use.

Registered users of GRUR-Prax can download the full article in German by Dr. Eckhard Ratjen here.

Dr. Daniel Herrmann, Patent Attorney at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

“Intellectual property rights have a significant impact on business” – Interview with Dr. Daniel Herrmann in the WiWo supplement 12/2025

/in

In a supplement to the December 2025 issue of WirtschaftsWoche, Dr. Herrmann explains how small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) can protect their rights and generate growth with the help of an IP strategy.

The protection of intellectual property is particularly important for small and medium-sized enterprises, according to BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and patent attorney Dr. Daniel Herrmann in an interview with the editorial team of inpact, a supplement to WirtschaftsWoche.
The risks of idea theft have increased significantly as a result of digitalization, internationalization, and the use of artificial intelligence. In addition, hacker attacks and increasing employee turnover increase the risk of knowledge leakage.

A targeted IP strategy, on the other hand, can promote growth: property rights secure market share, create exclusivity, and serve as bargaining chips for licensing or cross-licensing.
Studies show that SMEs that apply for patents are up to 20 percent more likely to grow. In the case of European patents, the probability of growth is as high as 30 percent.
A well-structured IP portfolio also increases the value of a company, as intangible assets play a decisive role in investments – think of start-ups, for example – as well as acquisitions and mergers.

The full interview with Dr. Daniel Herrmann in German is available online here.

Dr. Oliver Tarvenkorn, Patent Attorney at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

Patentability of AI generated inventions – article by Oliver Tarvenkorn in the IHK Magazine Lippe Nov/Dec 2025

/in

Useful guidance for patent applications involving AI‑related innovations

Artificial intelligence is the megatrend of our time and is now widely used in all areas of life. Inventions, too, are increasingly generated with the support of AI.
But are innovations that arise with the help of AI patentable? And what needs to be considered?

These questions are explained by BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT patent attorney Oliver Tarvenkorn in the November/December 2025 issue of the IHK Magazine Lippe Wissen + Wirtschaft.
The complete article is available here as a PDF file in German.

Dr. Julian Wernicke, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

Dr. Julian Wernicke, in GRUR Prax 23/2025, discusses statements that violate personal rights in client relationships.

/in

To what extent are statements that violate personal rights actionable in a client relationship? In a ruling, the Higher Regional Court of Dresden provided important clarifications regarding the assertion of possible injunctive relief claims.

The extent to which such statements are legally actionable is a recurring topic in case law. In a recent ruling dated 8 September 2025, the Dresden Higher Regional Court considered various statements made by a client to their lawyer, providing important clarifications regarding the assertion of possible injunctive relief claims.

In his article ‘Statements within the client relationship’ in GRUR Prax 23/2025, Julian Wernicke of BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT analyses the decision of the Dresden Higher Regional Court. This decision was based on a lawsuit filed by a lawyer who objected to statements made by her client during telephone calls and in a negative online review.

The court found that statements made in the context of a confidential conversation within a client relationship are privileged and cannot therefore be the subject of an injunction. Furthermore, the Dresden Higher Regional Court ruled that the plaintiff was not personally affected by the statements in question, since, despite her position as a partner, she is not identified with the law firm in a way that allows for direct personal attribution.

In his article, Julian Wernicke evaluates the ruling, emphasising that the privilege of confidential client consultations is integral to the legal profession. He also stresses that the question of personal involvement must be carefully examined if statements are not clearly directed at a specific person.

The full article is available in German to registered Beck Online users here.

Prof. Dr. Heinz Goddar and Melanie Müller as co-authors in Les Nouvelles, December 2025, on the potential of the PMAC

/in

Launching in 2026, the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre of the UPC offers confidential, efficient solutions for patent and SEP disputes – a flexible alternative to traditional litigation.

In the article “Potential of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)” in this year’s December issue of the “Journal of the Licensing Executives Society International,” the authors Rebekka Porath (Intellectual Property Fellow Innovation Network Germany), Dr. Peter Camesasca (partner at Camesasca BVBA, Brussels, Belgium), and BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorneys Prof. Dr. Heinz Goddar (patent attorney) and Melanie Müller (attorney at law) shed a light on the institutional framework, competence, and procedural potential of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC).

This was established as an institutional component with the introduction of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and is intended to serve as a specialized ADR (Alternative Dispute Resolution) body for patent disputes from 2026 onwards. The PMAC offers mediation and arbitration for European and unitary patents as well as SPCs (Supplementary Protection Certificates). Its aim is to provide efficient, flexible, and confidential proceedings, complementing UPC litigation.

In their article, the authors see particular potential for the PMAC in SEP/FRAND disputes (Standard Essential Patents) following the EU’s withdrawal of the proposed SEP Regulation. The PMAC could fill a gap here by offering a neutral forum for licensing negotiations. However, it lacks mandatory procedures and transparency mechanism envisioned by the SEP regulation. The authors suggest introducing incentives for cooperation and partial disclosure of anonymized outcomes.

Furthermore, the recent decision by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in BSH vs. Electrolux and the associated expansion of the jurisdiction of European courts for cross-border patent disputes could increase the attractiveness of the PMAC for global dispute resolution.

Overall, the authors see the PMAC as a new kid on the European patent dispute block – one well worth getting to know, to engage with, and, perhaps in time, to introduce into the family of established international ADR institutions.

Members of the Licensing Executives Society International (LESI) can download the full article here.

Update January 2026: The above-mentioned article entitled „Potential of the Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) of the Unified Patent Court (UPC)“ was selected by the board of the Licensing Executive Society International as the publication of the month in Les Nouvelles 1/2026.

Trademark litigation: The non-use defence – Article by Dr S. Engels and Dr J. Wernicke in Trademark Lawyer Magazine 4/2025

/in

The timing and choice of the most effective and admissible instrument for raising the non-use defence under the specific circumstances are crucial.

In their article “Trademark litigation in Germany: pitfalls in non-use defences”, published in issue 4/2025 of Trademark Lawyer magazine, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT attorneys at law Dr. Sebastian Engels and Dr. Julian Wernicke highlight the key differences between German and European trade mark law regarding the use requirement and the available non-use defences in litigation.

The two Berlin-based lawyers, who are highly experienced in trade mark law, emphasise the importance of understanding the different rules for registration and enforcement of trade marks in Germany and the EU. In their article, Dr. Sebastian Engels and Dr. Julian Wernicke specifically address:

  • The advantages and risks of filing revocation requests for non-use before the GPTO or EUIPO as a defence strategy in trade mark disputes.
  • The significance of timing and the choice of the right instrument for the non-use defence – such as objection, revocation request, or counterclaim.
  • Practical guidance for trade mark owners and defendants on how to respond strategically to the use requirement and which pitfalls may arise if the defence is raised too late.
  • The differences in enforcing and defending German trade marks and EU trade marks, especially regarding the five-year grace period for use and the impact on ongoing court proceedings.

The full article is available for free on the Trademark Lawyer magazine website. You can also download the PDF of the article “Trademark litigation in Germany: pitfalls in non-use defences”.

Dr. Eckhard Ratjen, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

Dr. Eckhard Ratjen in GRUR Prax 22/2025 on misleading advertising regarding the reporting requirement for online purchases of precious metals

/in

Advertising by a coin dealer stating that “Orders over € 2,000 are not subject to reporting requirements with us!” is a misleading commercial practice under Section 5 of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG). In future, advertising companies will not be able to rely on the blanket assumption that expressed legal opinions are always excluded from misleading advertising tests as expressions of opinion.

In his article  „Irreführende Werbung zur Meldepflicht bei Online-Edelmetallkäufen“ (Misleading advertising regarding the reporting requirement for online precious metal purchases) in GRUR Prax 22/2025, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and attorney at law Dr. Eckhard Ratjen explains the ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe of September 19, 2025 (14 U 72/25) against an online coin dealer whose advertising with the statement “Orders over €2,000 are not subject to reporting requirements with us!” constituted a misleading commercial practice under Section 5 of the German Unfair Competition Act (UWG).

According to the court, the online coin dealer’s statement gave the impression that there was a legal reporting obligation in the stationary precious metals trade that did not apply to online trading. In fact, the Money Laundering Act (Section 4 V No. 1 lit. b GwG) only provides for identification and risk management obligations; there is no general reporting obligation. The reporting obligation under Section 43 I GwG only applies in cases of concrete suspicion. The court clarified that advertising statements on the legal situation could be classified as factual claims if they suggested a binding regulation.

In his article, Dr. Ratjen evaluates the decision of the Higher Regional Court of Karlsruhe and recommends in practice that advertising statements on legal issues must be complete and accurate in terms of content, as simplistic or selective representations can quickly be considered misleading or sensationalist and thus, under certain circumstances, classified as factual claims. In future, advertising companies should no longer rely on the fact that legal opinions expressed are always excluded from misleading advertising tests as expressions of opinion.

The full article in German by Dr. Eckhard Ratjen is available for download to registered users of GRUR-Prax here.

Dr. Ute Kilger, Patent Attorney at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

Challenges for the bio­pharma­ceutical sector posed by US policy – article by Dr. Ute Kilger in Euro­pean Bio­tech­nology

/in

Article by Dr. Ute Kilger on the pressure exerted by the US government on the bio­pharma­ceutical industry and the consequences.

In the fall 2025 issue of European Biotechnology, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and patent attorney Dr. Ute Kilger explains the impact of US policy on the pharmaceutical and biotech industries in her article “Challenges for the biopharmaceutical sector posed by US policy”.

Dr. Kilger states that both the US and Europe are facing considerable challenges. Measures taken by the US government, such as the Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), the Orange Book initiative, the planned Most Favored Nation pricing regulation, and the proposed Trump-Lutnick patent tax, could hinder innovation and make investment in small molecule drugs unattractive.

In doing so, US policy favors generic drug entry and puts innovative companies under pressure. European companies are also affected, especially those that are heavily dependent on the US market. The EU is pursuing similar trends but has toned down some proposals following criticism from industry. If Europe acts decisively, it could benefit from the US measures and overtake the US in terms of innovative strength, concludes Dr. Kilger.

The full article by Dr. Kilger in English can be found in the fall issue of European Technology starting on page 33 and is available online here.

 

Dr. Rudolf Böckenholt, Attorney at Law at BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT

In GRUR Prax 19/2025, Dr. Böckenholt discusses two recent decisions on the concept of competitors in competition law

/in

Definition of the concept of competitors. Contexts that lead to diverging interpretations of the concept of competitors. Detailed practical advice.

In his article „Mitbewerber durch funktionale Substitution: echte Divergenzen zwischen EuGH und BGH oder Einzelfälle“ (‘Competitors through functional substitution: genuine divergences between the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) and the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) or individual cases’) in GRUR Prax, issue 19/2025, BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT partner and attorney at law Dr. Rudolf Böckenholt asks when a (sufficiently close) competitive relationship exists between two companies to be eligible for claims under the UWG (German Unfair Competition Act). In this context, the term ‘competitor’ must be defined under German and European law and it must be determined how broadly or narrowly this definition should be interpreted.

Against this background, Dr. Böckenholt compares a decision of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 8 May 2025 (GRUR 2025, 1001 – HUK-COBURG/Check24 = GRUR-Prax 2025, 367 [Baronikians]) with the ruling of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) of 27 March 2025 (GRUR 2025, 589 – Fluggastrechteportal = GRUR-Prax 2025, 469 [Bärenfänger]). Both decisions deal with the status of competitors in digital contexts, but come to different conclusions: while the CJEU requires structural similarity of services, the Federal Court of Justice considers functional substitutability sufficient to establish a competitive relationship.

But what contexts lead to such divergent interpretations of the concept of competition? And what does this mean for legal advice? Dr. Böckenholt examines these questions in detail in his article and provides readers with comprehensive practical guidance.

The full article by Dr Rudolf Böckenholt is available for download in German to registered users of GRUR-Prax here.