GERMANY Trends and Developments Contributed by: Bernhard Thum, Andreas Mötsch, Jonas Weickert and Frank Eichelhardt, Thum & Partner | Thum, Mötsch, Weickert Patentanw
Practical takeaways • In pharma, consider whether central risk is accept- able for the patents at issue and whether opt-out is warranted. • In technology sectors, plan for UPC enforcement and defence as a mainstream option rather than an exception. Interaction between national proceedings and the UPC Parallel proceedings : opportunity and co - ordination risk Parallel proceedings between German national courts and the UPC are increasingly common. Claimants may pursue UPC relief for multi-country leverage while also running national actions to maximise speed or to fit a specific objective. Defendants may counter with revocation strategies or national defensive actions. Parallel litigation can increase leverage but raises co- ordination risks. The central challenge is often not legal uncertainty but maintaining consistency across multiple proceedings. Inconsistent claim construc- tion positions, divergent technical explanations or incompatible factual narratives can undermine cred- ibility and reduce effectiveness across fora. It can also complicate settlement if parties perceive inconsistent positions as opportunistic. Practical takeaways • Maintain a single source of truth for technical and factual positions across all proceedings. • Co-ordinate communications and public state- ments, because they may become evidence in more than one forum. Forum selection and portfolio governance The availability of the UPC has pushed many com- panies to formalise opt-out governance. Rather than taking a uniform approach, businesses segment port- folios. Patents that are central to revenue or that are exposed to a high likelihood of validity attacks may be treated cautiously, given the greater exposure of centralised proceedings. Other patents may be left within the UPC system to enable broader enforcement reach, including multi-country injunction leverage.
Forum selection in a live dispute is more complex. Companies consider domicile, sales footprint, whether interim relief is needed, the likely timing and strength of validity attacks, and the commercial consequences of multi-market outcomes. Practical takeaways • Segment patents by business criticality and revo- cation sensitivity, and align opt-out choices with that segmentation. • Use a repeatable decision framework for forum selection that combines legal strength, commercial objectives and operational readiness. Employee Inventions and R&D Ownership Germany has a dedicated statutory regime for employee inventions, which affects entitlement, inven- tion disclosure processes and inventor remuneration. For businesses with German R&D, it is a core compli- ance and risk topic rather than a peripheral HR issue. The practical challenge is operational: ensuring inven- tion disclosures are processed promptly, that owner- ship and filing decisions are documented, and that remuneration is handled consistently and defensibly. Remuneration is commonly approached using estab- lished guideline concepts, and disputes can be chan- nelled through a specialised arbitration-style mecha- nism before litigation. Employee invention topics increasingly intersect with broader patent strategy. Where inventions are exploit- ed across group structures, contribute to standards or underpin licensing programmes, disputes around entitlement or remuneration can create distraction and risk. Practical takeaways • Implement a robust invention disclosure and decision workflow with clear responsibilities and tracking. • Treat remuneration policies as part of IP govern- ance and document the rationale to reduce dispute likelihood.
108 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook