1. What is the current legal landscape for Intellectual Property in Germany?

Traditionally, Germany has been one of the most prominent and active jurisdictions for patent litigation in Europe. This remains unchanged even with the establishment of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). Several cases are pending, either before German national courts or the German Divisions of the UPC. Given these parallel litigation systems, litigants now have a broader variety of strategic options for bringing patent lawsuits in Germany.

German National Patent Litigation

What attracts litigants is not only the economic significance of the German market but also its patenteefriendly legal environment. The German system is well-known for its bifurcated system, resulting in the so-called “injunction gap,” which often favors patentees. Furthermore, the German judges are highly experienced, given the country’s long-standing tradition in patent litigation. In addition, the proceedings are notably swift, and the enforcement of decisions is relatively straightforward. Compared to jurisdictions such as the United Kingdom and the United States, litigation costs in Germany are significantly lower. Moreover, Germany offers specific intellectual property rights such as utility models (Gebrauchsmuster), which provide patentees with additional strategic options.

Bifurcation and “Injunction Gap” – A Strategic Advantage for Patentees

Germany’s patent litigation system is bifurcated, i.e., infringement and validity are assessed and decided in separate proceedings before different courts. Infringement cases are heard by specialized civil courts—Munich, Düsseldorf and Mannheim being the busiest venues—while validity proceedings are brought before the Federal Patent Court. This separation can be advantageous for plaintiffs because infringement courts may grant injunctions before the Federal Patent Court rules on the validity, creating the “injunction gap,” during which the injunction is enforceable even though the patent’s validity is still under review.

To address this imbalance, the German legislator introduced new regulations for nullity proceedings a few years ago. The aim was to accelerate these proceedings and to provide early guidance from the technically qualified panels of the Federal Patent Court to the legally qualified judges in the infringement proceedings. Under the new rules, the Federal Patent Court is expected to issue a preliminary opinion on the validity within six months after service of the nullity action. Since its introduction, this requirement has been implemented in numerous cases, even though the six-month deadline is not always strictly observed.

Speed and Efficiency Provide Robust Protection

Speed and efficiency are general hallmarks of the German patent litigation forum. In infringement proceedings on the merits, depending on the venue, first instance judgements are often delivered within 10-18 months. Notably, preliminary injunctions are also available in Germany. They can be granted at a remarkable speed. If conducted as written (inter partes) proceedings, first-instance decisions are typically issued after ca. 3 months. However, under urgent circumstances, courts may issue even ex parte injunctions (i.e., without hearing the opposing party) within just a few days. This is especially common in trade fair scenarios or in cases where the alleged infringer has already submitted detailed arguments in response to a warning letter, which fail to undermine the merits of the application. Also, the enforcement of decisions in Germany is a well-established and reliable process.

Strategic Leverage Through Utility Models

Furthermore, Germany offers an additional kind of intellectual property right. Utility models (Gebrauchsmuster) are similar to patents but have a shorter maximum term of ten years. Unlike patents, utility models are registered without a substantive examination, allowing rights holders to obtain protection within a very short timeframe. They can be enforced independently, thereby providing plaintiffs with a broader variety of strategic enforcement options.

All the aforementioned features position Germany as an attractive venue within a global patent litigation strategy.

UPC Provides Additional Leverage

Since its launch in June 2023, the UPC has significantly reshaped the European patent litigation landscape. With around 1,000 cases filed, and those numbers continuing to rise, the UPC’s growing caseload reflects strong user confidence, particularly among patent owners.

The UPC enables centralized enforcement of both traditional European patents (unless opted out) and European patents with unitary effect (so-called Unitary Patents). It offers litigants a broad territorial reach (currently covering up to 18 member states combined with its long-arm jurisdiction), and simple enforcement. On the other hand, patents within the UPC system can also be challenged through a single central revocation action. Therefore, the new venue increases litigation efficiency but also introduces broader invalidation risks.

In addition to the structural advantages, the UPC also compels with swift proceedings and with technical expertise. Judgments in main proceedings are typically rendered within approximately one year, while decisions on preliminary injunctions have a similar timeframe as national German proceedings (written inter partes proceedings last approximately three months in the first instance; ex parte injunctions can be granted within a few days). This efficiency is complemented by the UPC’s high-caliber judiciary, which includes legally and technically qualified judges with extensive national experience, enabling the UPC to decide on infringement and validity in one single proceeding.

Germany’s Role in the UPC

Germany has emerged as a central pillar of the UPC system, both in terms of case volume and legal influence. According to the last report of the UPC (dated June 30, 2025), the German local divisions together account for over 60% of all UPC filings: Munich (27.6%), Düsseldorf (16.5%), Mannheim (10.1%), and Hamburg (7.7%). More than 75% of all infringement cases have been filed with German Divisions. A majority of UPC proceedings are heard in English (55%), while a substantial portion (39%) is still conducted in German. Furthermore, the court’s emerging jurisprudence shows many similarities with German case law. These trends highlight Germany’s significance within the UPC system.

2. What three essential pieces of advice would you give to clients involved in Patent Litigation matters?

1. Be Strategic

Effective patent litigation begins with early strategic planning.

For claimants, one of the first and most impactful decisions is to select the right venue. A well-chosen forum can offer procedural advantages, experienced judges, and favorable precedent, all of which may significantly influence the chances of success. Beyond jurisdiction, other key factors such as timing, early engagement of experts, and enforcement objectives should be carefully considered to shape a litigation strategy tailored to the litigant’s specific case and business objectives.

Potential infringers should prepare early with an FTO and identify claims that might be asserted to develop their defensive strategy. Initiating opposition or nullity proceedings can be advisable to pave the way before market entry.

2. Be Prepared

Readiness is crucial in patent litigation. This is particularly true before the UPC, where proceedings are frontloaded and require comprehensive submissions and evidence to be filed at an early stage.

For patentees, this means having product samples, technical descriptions, and infringement analyses readily available. If evidence is missing, both German and UPC law offer mechanisms—such as inspection proceedings—to obtain specific evidence under certain prerequisites.

Potential infringers, on the other hand, need to prepare their defenses early. Since prior art searches require time, they should be initiated as early as possible. This is especially critical in preliminary injunction proceedings as they move extremely fast.

3. Be Thorough

Litigants must ensure that all arguments are carefully considered and coordinated, particularly in cross-border patent disputes, where inconsistencies across jurisdictions can undermine the overall strategy. Attention to detail is critical to avoid pitfalls and unintended consequences in parallel proceedings.

3. What are the greatest threats and opportunities in Patent Litigation law in the next 12 months?

As the UPC has steadily gained traction since its launch, it will be particularly interesting to observe how this new venue will influence national litigation over the next 12 months.

While German national courts in Munich, Düsseldorf, and Mannheim are still central venues in European patent litigation, public data indicate, however, there has been a slight decline of case numbers in Düsseldorf and Mannheim and stagnation in Munich. Given that many cases are currently pending before German Divisions of the UPC, this may be interpreted as a gradual shift toward the new court.

Notably, not all sectors have embraced the UPC equally. Apart from the prominent Sanofi v. Amgen case, the pharmaceutical industry, for example, was initially extremely cautious. While we are seeing a slow increase of pharma cases being filed at the UPC, we expect that national litigation will continue to play an important role in this sector, especially in the case of blockbuster drugs, where a central revocation of the relevant patents would entail enormous risks for the originator’s market.

In addition, parallel litigation—where some patents are asserted before national courts and others are enforced simultaneously before the UPC—may become more common, as it offers patentees greater strategic leverage.

All of this underscores the importance of closely monitoring how the case volumes develop at both the UPC and national courts and whether the German national courts will retain their historical prominence despite the UPC’s growth.

4. How do you ensure high client satisfaction levels are maintained by your practice?

Client-Centered Strategy

One of our guiding principles is to deliver strategically tailored advice to help our clients meet their individual aims and business objectives. Active listening, gathering of all relevant facts, and careful analysis are key since no case is the same.

High Quality Standard Through Legal and Technical Expertise

Given that each client is active in specific technical fields, a deep understanding of the relevant sector and technology is essential. We work in combined teams of experienced attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys with sector-specific expertise to deliver tailored high-quality results to address all legal and technical aspects of each individual case. Additionally, we closely monitor legal and technological developments to provide advice aligned with the most current advancements in both fields.

Responsiveness and Clear Communication

In today’s fast-paced environment, agility is a critical cornerstone. Responsiveness and clear communication with clients are therefore the heart of our daily work. Patent litigation often demands swift, decisive action. We prioritize fast adaptations to ensure the client’s objectives are met while cases evolve. In complex scenarios, we explore alternative approaches to find a practical solution that best serves our client’s needs.

Global Collaboration in Cross-Border Cases

We help our clients navigate the complexities of global patent litigation. By leveraging the multi-jurisdictional capabilities of Finnegan’s global offices, we ensure that legal arguments are aligned across jurisdictions. This coordinated approach makes litigation management highly convenient and efficient for our clients.

5. What technological advancements are reshaping Patent Litigation law and how can clients benefit from them?

Patent litigation takes place in a constantly evolving technological landscape. This dynamic environment not only drives an increase in patentable innovations but also reshapes the way legal practice is conducted.

Courts have adopted digital infrastructure, and during the pandemic, virtual hearings have become more frequent. This reduced travel costs and improved accessibility. However, while remote hearings before the European Patent Office (EPO) remain standard practice, national courts have largely returned to in-person hearings.

The UPC, meanwhile, launched its new digital case-management system in September and is continuously enhancing its infrastructure to further streamline the proceedings and improve the procedural workflows.

Technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) are advancing at an exponential pace, offering significant benefits to both clients and law firms. AI tools can nowadays support, for example, efficient legal research and targeted prior art searches. For clients, these advancements can translate into cost savings due to greater efficiency. However, AI tools are not yet fully autonomous, and their output may still be inaccurate. It is therefore crucial to closely monitor the development of legal AI tools, and implement only those that provide effective support, while assuring robust data protection. We at Finnegan are closely monitoring these developments to stay ahead.