Intellectual Property disputes and Litigation

When you have to deal with IP litigation our team can help

If a person is infringing your IP, or if you need to defend against such allegations, we can help. We deal holistically with IP disputes. This involves experience and lateral pragmatic thinking to develop and deliver a range of different options and strategies to maximise your outcomes.

Our practical approach coupled with our commercial awareness is highly valued by our clients. It is these qualities, combined with our deep legal and technical expertise, that allows us to provide focused, useful, and competitively priced advice.

We work across all types of IP, clients and industry sectors. Our litigation services cover court proceedings in the UK and Germany, revocation actions at the UKIPO and DPMA, domain name disputes, and alternative dispute resolution (ADR) such as mediation and international arbitration. We often collaborate with other professional advisors in complex multi-jurisdictional or parallel litigation cases.

In particular, we can represent all aspects of litigation at the UPC.

Our aim is to ensure clients benefit from creative, technically astute and joined up thinking when it comes to their IP strategy and that they achieve a commercially successful outcome. Please get in touch. We'd be happy to help.

Read more on our Spotlight on Litigation page and Spotlight on The Unitary Patent & Unified Patent Court pages. See also our pages on Oppositions & Appeals.

Need Help? Speak to our Experts

Sean Jauss

Partner, Lawyer, Head of Legal Services

Caroline Hart

Senior Associate, Lawyer

Thomas Wolter

Partner, Patent Attorney

Jan Rether

Partner, Attorney-at-law under German law

Meet our IP dispute experts

Recent Examples of our Work

Jushi Group Co Ltd vOCV Intellectual Capital LLC ([2018] EWCA Civ 1416): patent infringement

We successfully represented the defendant (OCV Intellectual Capital LLC) in the IPEC and the Court of Appeal on the validity and infringement of their patent for a range of compositions for making glass ﬁbre. The judgment contains a discussion of the patent ofﬁce’s ‘serious contemplation’ test for novelty in the context of overlapping ranges and its compatibility with those principles.

Wearable technology company: patent infringement

We are representing our client in the wearable technology industry in the IPEC in relation to allegations that their product infringes the UK patents of the claimant. Proceedings are ongoing.

Teleﬂex Life Sciences Unlimited Company v Flexicare Medical Limited (4c O 88/18): patent infringement

We represented our client (Flexicare) in their defence against a patent infringement claim in Germany relating to a Laryngeal device. The case successfully settled before trial.

Wavescapes Limited v Coventry Sports Foundation: trade mark infringement

We represented our client (Wavescapes) in respect of the infringement of their trade marks in the IPEC. The case successfully settled shortly before the CMC.

Greentech company: patent infringement

We represent a US-based company active in the use of fungi in building panels and packaging in relation to the unauthorised use of their patents in Europe and elsewhere, including threatened proceedings in the UK and Australia, and a revocation action in the Czech Republic.

Greentech company: patent entitlement

We represented a UK filtration and separation technologies company in a complex patent entitlement dispute. The case settled successfully before proceedings were issued.

Howorth Air Technology v Medical Air Technology (Holdings) Limited & Others: patent infringement

We represented the defendants (MAT) in UK patent infringement proceedings in the High Court in relation to an air filtration system. The case was successfully settled before trial.

Playseats BV and F Smit Holdings BV v Ace Casual Limited: design infringement

As part of a multi-jurisdictional enforcement, we represented the claimants (Playseats) in UK design infringement proceedings in the IPEC in relation to foldable gaming chairs. The case was successfully settled before trial.

Saisie: patent infringement

We are representing a major European drinks manufacturer in relation to the infringement of their process patent, including defending an EPO opposition and, with French counsel, handling a saisie contrefaçon action in France and related proceedings in the Paris court.

Musician: brand infringement

We are representing the rights of a major US musician in relation to an unauthorised commercial tribute act, including trade mark infringement proceedings in the UK High Court. The matter is ongoing.

Credit card: brand infringement

We are representing a major US credit card company in complex pre-action litigation and in related cancellation actions regarding the unauthorised use of their brand in the UK. The case is ongoing.

Polymer company: mediation

We represented a UK client in relation to a breach of patent licence claim and a counterclaim challenging patent validity, in particular handling CEDR mediation, which successfully resolved the dispute.

Optical fibre company: revocation action

We represented a major European optical fibre company in a UKIPO revocation case, in which the target patent was revoked. The action formed part of a pre-emptive litigation strategy to assist proceedings elsewhere in the EU where the patent was being enforced against our client.

Confectionary retailer: trade mark infringement

We are representing the licensee in complex pre-action litigation regarding the misuse of their brand by a confectionary retailer. We are working alongside an international law firm representing the licensor in the action. The case is ongoing.

Computer gaming company: trade mark infringement

Charity: trade mark infringement

We represented our client, a UK charity, in relation to repeated infringement of their trade marks by a major supermarket chain. The case was successfully settled before proceedings were issued.

Challenging patents and other clearance actions in Europe

A Brochure

Find out more about post-grant offensive options including EPO oppositions, UKIPO non-binding validity opinions, and revocation actions at the UKIPO, UPC or national courts. To post-grant defensive options including UPC protective letters, UKIPO non-binding infringement opinions, and UPC or national court declarations of non-infringement (DNIs).

Our brochure also covers pre-grant options including third-party observations at the EPO, UKIPO, German Patent Office (DPMA), and at the World IP Office (WIPO).

The Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court

A Guide

Find out more about the Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court with our detailed guide. This covers a summary overview of both as well as details around costs and processes to obtain a unitary patent and a comparison of pros and cons.

We can handle all aspects of litigation at the UPC, both offensive and defensive actions.

Download here

Patent Litigation Trends in England and Wales

Special Report 2022

Our report examines data collected between 2020 and 2021 in both the Patents Court and the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court (IPEC).

It looks at the types and sizes of businesses that are most frequently filing claims as well as where they are based. It also explores the industries and technical areas where parties tend to operate, and the strategies deployed on both sides of the dispute.

Download here

Resources

The unitary patent and the unified patent court explained

The Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court provides a new type of European patent and a new system for litigating patents in Europe.

Validity & infringement opinions from the UKIPO

The UK Intellectual Property Office (UKIPO) has a procedure to provide independent, non-binding opinions on questions of validity and infringement of UK and EP(UK) patents or SPCs based on such patents.

Why record changes of ownership at the EPO?

Recording a change of ownership on the EP register is not mandatory. However, we do highly recommend recording such changes in particular for the purposes of litigation.

EPO oppositions

A European patent may be opposed once it is granted. The opposition is handled by the European Patent Office (EPO) and so is a central procedure effective for all designated countries, i.e. the EPO opposition procedure is separate and in addition to national invalidity/revocation procedures.

I need help with an IP dispute