As a partner at BDPE, what does inspiring yet effective leadership look like to you?

What inspired me to pursue a career as a patent attorney many moons ago was the combination of technical, analytical, legal and strategic skills, as every case is different and uniquely challenging. Thus, the most inspiring moment for the team is probably winning the case. However, as patent litigation is teamwork with a significant number of tasks requiring certain talents, achieving such inspiring moments on a regular basis requires specific team management – like in sports.  

In patent litigation, we must combine these factors to provide a perfect service for our clients. Usually, our cases involve not only our team, but also an in-house team and external attorneys. Often the size of such a combined team exceeds 10, sometimes up to 20 lawyers. Effective leadership means not only leading the BDPE team but the wider group as a whole to achieve the best result. 

Conflicting goals and expectations must be managed and communicated, so a clear and reliable assessment of the situation is necessary to lead the team in the right direction. As this assessment should be based on technical, analytical, legal and strategic skills and experience, effective leadership must combine these in the best way.

To do this, we hire professionals who are passionate about patent litigation and can deliver high-calibre work to our clients. As they are all individuals with specific strengths, our winning strategy is positioning everyone in the team according to their strengths so that they can make the best use of them. In this way, they gain experience in the most efficient way while delivering the best results.

The UPC is becoming a popular strategic tool when it comes to bolstering SEP suits. What advice would you give to those considering filing an SEP suit at the court?

The UPC could now have the chance to develop as a jurisdiction different to Germany – it could become an interesting venue for SEPs. However, this is still uncertain, as no such decision on the unified patent has been made yet. Nevertheless, it must be noted that the German jurisdiction is considered to be SEP-holder friendly.

Generally, our advice is the same as for patent litigation before national courts:  thorough analysis of the validity and infringement of the patents upfront is key. This kind of assessment is even more important at the UPC, as infringement and validity arguments must be more closely aligned as in separated German proceedings.

You cover a range of technical fields in your practice, from telecoms to power engineering. How do you keep abreast of all the latest IP developments in such an array of fields?

On one hand, we focus on a specific technological area that we know very well and have been working in for many years. On the other hand, we almost exclusively focus on patent litigation. Our patent attorneys therefore have extensive experience in this area, as this is our daily business. Further, SEP litigation usually means working with or against top-tier law firms. We are also frequently involved in landmark cases, which is the best training to stay at the top. 

As an established litigator, what is the key to a winning strategy before the courts?

There is no one-size-fits-all strategy as every case is different. Moreover, there are always uncertainties, such as delays and new case law. Instead, the question is how much the risk of unexpected events can be reduced and what counterstrategies should be prepared. This is a decision that the client has to make, as sometimes a cost-effective but higher-risk strategy might fit better than a more expensive, minimal-risk approach.

In any case – and I think this is common ground – experience is very important to find the most efficient and successful way through the litigation.  

If you could change anything about the patent enforcement process before the EPO, what would it be, and do you think it is likely to happen?

The EPO has sped up opposition proceedings. In view of this, each party usually exchanges one brief before a preliminary non-binding opinion is issued by the opposition division. If there are parallel infringement proceedings, the arguments in those are quite often not yet final and fixed when the opposition is filed. Thus, there is a certain risk that the arguments are not fully aligned. Therefore, short second briefs before a preliminary non-binding opinion is issued could help to further align the arguments in both proceedings.