{"id":42552,"date":"2025-10-20T13:44:14","date_gmt":"2025-10-20T11:44:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/?p=42552"},"modified":"2025-10-21T10:29:42","modified_gmt":"2025-10-21T08:29:42","slug":"upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/","title":{"rendered":"First Substantive Decisions of the UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin"},"content":{"rendered":"<h2 style=\"font-size: 1.5em; line-height: 1.3em;\">The decisions provide initial legal certainty on issues of disclosure, interpretation, infringement, and directors\u2019 liability.<\/h2>\n\n<style type=\"text\/css\" data-created_by=\"avia_inline_auto\" id=\"style-css-av-l15uu0-c2e674f476030886998c3730d1f4dae9\">\n#top .hr.hr-invisible.av-l15uu0-c2e674f476030886998c3730d1f4dae9{\nheight:25px;\n}\n<\/style>\n<div  class='hr av-l15uu0-c2e674f476030886998c3730d1f4dae9 hr-invisible  avia-builder-el-0  avia-builder-el-no-sibling'><span class='hr-inner'><span class=\"hr-inner-style\"><\/span><\/span><\/div>\n<h3>1. Context and Significance<\/h3>\n<p>In October 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued its long-awaited first substantive decisions: (i) the decision in Seoul Viosys (UPC_CoA_764\/2024 &amp; 774\/2024) concerning added subject-matter, and (ii) the decision in Philips v. Belkin (UPC_CoA_534\/2024, 19\/2025, 683\/2024) addressing infringement, claim interpretation, and directors\u2019 liability.<\/p>\n<p>These judgments \u2013 coming just over two years after the launch of the UPC system \u2013 mark the beginning of a true harmonisation of substantive patent law within the framework of the UPCA.<\/p>\n<h3>2. The Seoul Viosys Decision (CoA 764\/2024 &amp; 774\/2024)<\/h3>\n<p>In its first substantive decision, the Court of Appeal dealt with the question of whether the granted claims extended beyond the content of the application as originally filed. The defendant in the infringement proceedings had filed a counterclaim for revocation based on added subject-matter. While the court of first instance had upheld the patent, the Court of Appeal reversed that decision and revoked the patent.<\/p>\n<p>The Court confirmed that the relevant test for added subject-matter under Article 65(2) UPCA and Article 138(1)(c) EPC corresponds to the so-called \u201cgold standard\u201d of the EPO: the skilled person must be able to derive the claimed subject-matter directly and unambiguously from the original disclosure, taking into account their common general knowledge. An implicit disclosure is sufficient only if it is the inevitable consequence of what is expressly disclosed.<\/p>\n<p>Particular importance was given to the issue of divisional applications. The Court held that the disclosure must be found not only in the divisional application itself, but also in any earlier application in the chain of filings \u2013 including parent and grandparent applications. The deletion of features or the combination of elements from different embodiments may amount to an impermissible intermediate generalisation unless the remaining combination is itself clearly and unambiguously disclosed as a general teaching. Applying this test, the Court found that the patent contained added subject-matter and therefore revoked it.<\/p>\n<p>Commentators have noted that the reasoning closely follows EPO case law, while at the same time representing an autonomous application of these principles under the UPCA. The decision thus establishes a strict disclosure standard as the benchmark for assessing patent validity before the UPC.<\/p>\n<h3>3. The Philips v. Belkin Decision (CoA 534\/2024, 19\/2025 &amp; 683\/2024)<\/h3>\n<p>In its second substantive decision, the Court of Appeal dealt with several appeals arising from an infringement case before the Munich Local Division. Philips had asserted European Patent EP 2 867 997 against several Belkin entities and their managing directors. The first instance had found infringement and issued injunction, recall, and destruction orders. The Court of Appeal used the case to clarify key issues of infringement law \u2013 in particular, claim interpretation, the notion of \u201coffering,\u201d and personal liability of managing directors.<\/p>\n<h3>4. Claim Interpretation<\/h3>\n<p>The Court confirmed a functional, expert-oriented approach to claim interpretation. The key question was whether a transmitter that only sends a signal of \u201cacceptance\u201d fulfils a claim feature referring to \u201cacceptance or rejection.\u201d The Court of Appeal held that it does, as the technical purpose \u2013 the communication of the negotiation result \u2013 is achieved. The decisive point is the understanding of the skilled person in light of the description; statements made by the applicant during prosecution may serve as supporting evidence but cannot independently limit the scope of protection.<\/p>\n<p>Accordingly, the Court clarified that the objective technical meaning derived from the description remains decisive, and that the prosecution history does not constitute a primary source of interpretation. This approach \u2013 largely in line with expectations \u2013 enhances legal certainty for future interpretation disputes before the UPC.<\/p>\n<h3>5. \u201cOffering\u201d as an Act of Infringement under Article 25(a) UPCA<\/h3>\n<p>The Court of Appeal interpreted the concept of \u201coffering\u201d in an economic and autonomous manner. A legally binding offer is not required; even a mere presentation or invitation to submit an offer can constitute an act of infringement if it enables potential customers to acquire the patented product. Consequently, online product listings, catalogues, or advertisements may amount to infringement, even where no sale has yet occurred.<\/p>\n<p>This broad interpretation \u2013 largely consistent with German law \u2013 reflects the realities of modern marketing practices. Companies operating within the UPC territory must therefore continue to review their advertising and sales activities carefully to avoid infringement risks.<\/p>\n<h3>6. Liability of Managing Directors<\/h3>\n<p>A central aspect of the Belkin judgment was the personal liability of managing directors. The Court clarified that mere corporate office does not give rise to liability. Personal liability exists only where the director deliberately uses the company as an instrument of infringement or, being aware of the infringement and its unlawfulness, fails to take reasonable steps to prevent it. This is likely to result, overall, in a management liability regime that is somewhat less strict than under German law, yet still one to be taken seriously.<\/p>\n<p>The Court further emphasised that obtaining well-founded legal advice \u2013 for example, a non-infringement or freedom-to-operate opinion \u2013 may shield against liability, at least until a first-instance court has confirmed the infringement. As Philips had failed to show intentional or knowing participation by the Belkin directors, the Court lifted the injunctions issued against them.<\/p>\n<h3>7. Relationship with National Decisions<\/h3>\n<p>Belkin relied on an earlier German decision in which a Philips infringement claim had been dismissed. The Court of Appeal, unsurprisingly, rejected this argument: the res judicata effect of national judgments extends only to their operative part within the respective national territory and between the same parties. The reasoning and interpretation of a national court are not binding on the UPC, which under Articles 34 and 65 UPCA exercises independent jurisdiction.<\/p>\n<h3>8. Conclusion<\/h3>\n<p>The first substantive decisions of the UPC Court of Appeal \u2013 Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin \u2013 may hold few surprises in substance, but they nonetheless represent an important milestone in the development of European patent litigation. They provide initial legal certainty on issues of disclosure, interpretation, infringement, and directors\u2019 liability. Further decisions of the Court of Appeal in the coming months are eagerly awaited and will continue to shape the UPC\u2019s emerging jurisprudence.<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The decisions provide initial legal certainty on issues of disclosure, interpretation, infringement, and directors\u2019 liability. 1. Context and Significance In October 2025, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) issued its long-awaited first substantive decisions: (i) the&#8230;<\/p>","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":42393,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":"","_links_to":"","_links_to_target":""},"categories":[64],"tags":[],"legal_areas":[],"class_list":["post-42552","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-upc-update-en"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"<!-- This site is optimized with the Yoast SEO plugin v28.2 - https:\/\/yoast.com\/product\/yoast-seo-wordpress\/ -->\n<title>UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin judgments<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"First decisions by the UPC Court of Appeal mark the beginning of the harmonisation of substantive patent law under the UPCA. Read more here!\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin judgments\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"First decisions by the UPC Court of Appeal mark the beginning of the harmonisation of substantive patent law under the UPCA. Read more here!\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"BOEHMERT &amp; BOEHMERT\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2025-10-20T11:44:14+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2025-10-21T08:29:42+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"650\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"598\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Petra Hettenkofer\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Petra Hettenkofer\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"6 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Petra Hettenkofer\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19\"},\"headline\":\"First Substantive Decisions of the UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-20T11:44:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-21T08:29:42+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":1064,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\",\"articleSection\":[\"UPC-Update\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/\",\"name\":\"UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin judgments\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2025-10-20T11:44:14+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2025-10-21T08:29:42+00:00\",\"description\":\"First decisions by the UPC Court of Appeal mark the beginning of the harmonisation of substantive patent law under the UPCA. Read more here!\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2025\\\/10\\\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg\",\"width\":650,\"height\":598,\"caption\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT UPC Update\"},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"First Substantive Decisions of the UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/\",\"name\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT\",\"description\":\"Intellectual property law firm\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB\",\"alternateName\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Logo-boehmert.webp\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2026\\\/07\\\/Logo-boehmert.webp\",\"width\":696,\"height\":172,\"caption\":\"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/de.linkedin.com\\\/company\\\/boehmert-&-boehmert\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.xing.com\\\/pages\\\/boehmert-boehmertanwaltssozietat\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.boehmert.de\\\/en\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19\",\"name\":\"Petra Hettenkofer\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin judgments","description":"First decisions by the UPC Court of Appeal mark the beginning of the harmonisation of substantive patent law under the UPCA. Read more here!","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin judgments","og_description":"First decisions by the UPC Court of Appeal mark the beginning of the harmonisation of substantive patent law under the UPCA. Read more here!","og_url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/","og_site_name":"BOEHMERT &amp; BOEHMERT","article_published_time":"2025-10-20T11:44:14+00:00","article_modified_time":"2025-10-21T08:29:42+00:00","og_image":[{"width":650,"height":598,"url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Petra Hettenkofer","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Petra Hettenkofer","Est. reading time":"6 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/"},"author":{"name":"Petra Hettenkofer","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19"},"headline":"First Substantive Decisions of the UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin","datePublished":"2025-10-20T11:44:14+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-21T08:29:42+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/"},"wordCount":1064,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","articleSection":["UPC-Update"],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/","name":"UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin judgments","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","datePublished":"2025-10-20T11:44:14+00:00","dateModified":"2025-10-21T08:29:42+00:00","description":"First decisions by the UPC Court of Appeal mark the beginning of the harmonisation of substantive patent law under the UPCA. Read more here!","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/10\/Beitragsbild-UPC-Update-2.jpg","width":650,"height":598,"caption":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT UPC Update"},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/upc-seoul-viosys-and-philips-v-belkin\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"First Substantive Decisions of the UPC Court of Appeal: Seoul Viosys and Philips v. Belkin"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/","name":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT","description":"Intellectual property law firm","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#organization","name":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB","alternateName":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Logo-boehmert.webp","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/07\/Logo-boehmert.webp","width":696,"height":172,"caption":"BOEHMERT & BOEHMERT Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/de.linkedin.com\/company\/boehmert-&-boehmert","https:\/\/www.xing.com\/pages\/boehmert-boehmertanwaltssozietat"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/#\/schema\/person\/e46018db6ce9c808bc0f35de4a8cec19","name":"Petra Hettenkofer"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42552","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=42552"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/42552\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/42393"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=42552"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=42552"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=42552"},{"taxonomy":"legal_areas","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.boehmert.de\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/legal_areas?post=42552"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}