New challenges require new strategies, that’s where AIPEX can help
AIPEX is one of the most highly and universally respected practices in Europe. Our pan-European presence, single point of entry service and legal expertise enable us to help clients in national courts as well as navigate the new Unified Patent Court (UPC) as the new court develops its procedures and case law.
Why AIPEX
Our intellectual property (IP) litigation practice is a sophisticated, European enterprise with experience in all aspects of IP litigation. Whether this may involve national patent infringement law suits, European Patent Office (EPO) oppositions, or UPC patent infringement or revocation actions, AIPEX is determined to assist you in protecting your IP.
Our team is fully prepared for litigation at the new UPC and pride themselves on being the most experienced & knowledgeable professionals in the industry. With over 250 IP attorneys in 12 different countries, operating from over 40 offices, AIPEX has the knowledge, experience and language skills to support clients in patent litigation at the UPC in any field of technology.
More than 30 patent litigators to represent your interests before the UPC.
With the introduction of the UPC and the new Unitary Patent (UP), the European patent litigation system is undergoing a set of fundamental reforms. With the help of over 30 European patent attorneys & attorneys at law who are qualified to act as representatives before the UPC, you can rest assured that your IP is in good hands when it comes to enforcing and defending your rights.
Wherever possible, we’ll do our utmost to avoid the cost of IP litigation.
There are many alternatives to litigation, ranging from early warnings to creating new licensees from potential infringers, however, trademark, design right or patent infringement cases can only be dealt with properly with the help of IP attorneys who understand your line of business. When litigation is needed, you will be glad our experienced intellectual property lawyers and their teams are on your side. When the time comes, it is essential to have a partner that can guide you through the most cost-effective IP litigation process while protecting your IP and business reputation.
Giving advice and undertaking IP litigation
With so many European patent litigators in our team, we are well positioned to advise and take action at any stage in an IP case:
• General advice
• Litigation strategy formulation
• Research into prior art
• Product analysis
• Discovery
• Infringement and invalidity contentions
• Witness liaison
• Expert reports
• Pre-trial and trial
We operate in areas as diverse as traditional patent infringement or the most arcane litigation connected with today’s evolving IP. Whatever your IP requirement, we advise on (and help establish) robust IP to discourage infringement and protect your IP rights.
Past Litigation Cases by AIPEX firms
- European Central Bank vs. DSS (principle decision: Federal Court of Justice BGH Xa ZR 124/07 – Fälschungssicheres Dokument) Link to case
- TRW vs. ISI (principle decision: Federal Court of Justice BGH X ZR 93/17 – Seitenaufprallschutz bei Kopf-Airbag) and TRW vs. KSS both concerning basic patent for windowbags Link to case
- TRW vs. JTEK (principle decision: Federal Court of Justice BGH Xa ZR 70/08 - Maschinensatz) Link to case
- MEDTRONIC ARDIAN LUXEMBOURG S.A.R.L. vs. OTSUKA MEDICAL DEVICES EUROPE GmbH (Court of Turin - medical devices (device for renal neuromodulation) - validity)
- Eli Lilly vs Fresenius Kabi Oncology PLC. (Court of Milan - chemotherapeutic agent (pemetrexed) - infringement and validity)
- ICOS vs. Teva (Court of Milan - pharmaceutical small molecule (tadalafil) - validity)
- Arlanxeo vs. Versalis (Court of Milan - elastomeric rubbers (EA(D)M Elastomeres) - validity and infringement)
- Pfizer - Wyeth vs. GlaxoSmithKline (Court of Milan - vaccines - validity and infringement)
- KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. vs. Lamanna (Court of Milan - electronics (process for controlling ambient light) - validity)
- Seiko Epson Corporation vs. Pelikan (printer cartridges - validity)
- DakoCytomation S.p.A. vs. The Regents of the University of Calidornia (Court of Milan - medical device - validity and infringement)
- LG Electronics Inc. vs. KONINKLIJKE PHILIPS ELECTRONICS N.V. (Court of Milan - electronics (circuit) - validity)
- PEUGEOT MOTOCYCLES S.A.S vs. PIAGGIO & C. S.p.A. (Court of Milan - motorbike - validity and infringement)
- Bayer v. Exeltis / Chemo Group (Client) CJEU C-688/2017 CURIA - List of results (europa.eu)
- Novartis vs Mylan, Fingolimod 2022 1, Rechtspraak.nl - Search pronunciations 2,ECLI:NL:GHDHA:2022:1129, Gerechtshof Den Haag, 200.308.471/01 (rechtspraak.nl) 3,ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:2490, Rechtbank Den Haag, C/09/625743 / KG ZA 22-195 (rechtspraak.nl)
- Galenicum vs Insud, Sitagliptin, 2022 ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2022:494, Rechtbank Den Haag, C/09/602648 / HA ZA 20-1096 (rechtspraak.nl)
- LST vs DoppelMayr : https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/lst-infringes-innova-ski-lift-patents/
- Otis vs Schindler https://group.schindler.com/en/media/press-releases/otis-and-schindler-announce-settlement-and-license-agreement.html)
- Sony vs. Subsonic https://www.juve-patent.com/cases/subsonic-and-plasseraud-defeat-sony-in-litigation-over-playstation-controllers/
AIPEX UPC useful link:
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court Agreement (UPCA)
- EU Regulation 1257/2012 on Unitary Patent Protection (UP)
- Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (RoP)
- Scale of ceilings for recoverable costs
- Guidelines for the determination of the court fees and the ceiling of recoverable costs
- Rules on the European Patent Litigation Certificate and other appropriate qualifications
- EU Regulation 542/2014 amending 1215/2012 Brussel I. Regulation
- EU Regulation 1260/2012 on translation arrangements
- EPO Rules relating to Unitary Patent Protection (OJ EPO 2022, A41),
- EPO Rules relating to Fees for Unitary Patent Protection (OJ EPO 2022, A42)
