Category: Insights

Appointed to PMAC’s Guidelines Working Group

Posted on by Jo Woods

Congratulations to Alex Wilson, Partner at Powell Gilbert, on his appointment to the UPC’s Patent Mediation and Arbitration Centre (PMAC) FRAND Guidelines Working Group.

The newly established Working Group brings together an impressive range of experts from across the global SEP and FRAND ecosystem, including leading practitioners, senior judges, academics, and industry specialists, to develop non-binding guidelines and best practice recommendations for resolving FRAND licensing disputes.

Speaking to JUVE Patent (JUVE Pacemaker) about the appointment, Alex highlighted the unique role PMAC is designed to play: “The PMAC provides an ADR toolbox which was designed from the get-go with FRAND disputes in mind. Court procedures are necessarily less focused on these types of disputes. The PMAC rules and, hopefully, FRAND guidelines could fill a gap, for example, where litigants want a neutral venue to determine the terms of a FRAND licence.”

Alex’s appointment is a testament to his deep expertise in dispute resolution of standard essential patents and FRAND disputes. He is a CEDR accredited mediator and neutral before the PMAC. His appointments reflect the continued prominence of Powell Gilbert in shaping important developments across the IP landscape.

We look forward to seeing the Working Group’s contribution to the future of efficient and balanced dispute resolution in SEP and FRAND matters.

Powell Gilbert grows London team with four Associate hires

Posted on by Jo Woods

22 SEPTEMBER 2025

London: European IP law firm Powell Gilbert has today announced the expansion of its market-leading team of IP lawyers with the appointment of four Associates in London.

Ioana Sabau joined the firm in August after working as an Associate to the Honourable Justice Rofe in the Federal Court of Australia, where she worked across patent, copyright and trade mark disputes, assisting with drafting judgments, providing in-depth legal research and administering all aspects of case management.  Before joining the Federal Court, Ioana was in private practice where she advised clients in complex patent litigation across a range of industries, including pharmaceuticals, agrochemicals, and technology.

Oliver Roberts joined the firm on 1 September, having trained and qualified as an IP Associate at CMS. Oliver specialises in contentious IP matters within the technology and media sectors. His experience includes assisting in patent litigation concerning data centre technologies before the UK High Court, as well as advising clients on copyright, trade mark and regulatory risks relating to the use of artificial intelligence.

Anvitaa Narayanan joined Powell Gilbert on 11 September having trained at Hogan Lovells. She has experience of a range of contentious patent matters, including FRAND proceedings and infringement claims involving major technology, telecommunications and pharmaceutical companies. She also has experience advising clients in the defence and renewable energy sectors.

Carolina D’Amato also joined the firm on 11 September, having qualified as a lawyer after working as an IP paralegal at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP and at Bird & Bird LLP. Carolina has first-hand experience of multi-party trials, including large-scale patent and FRAND disputes, from early development and initial pleadings through to appeal hearings, with a particular focus on the life sciences and healthcare sectors, including co-ordination of multi-jurisdictional disputes.

These new additions bring the total number of lawyers at Powell Gilbert to 40. Their arrival follows the firm’s recent announcement that it has opened an office in Düsseldorf led by renowned German patent litigator Dr Andreas Kramer, providing a base in continental Europe for the firm’s award-winning UPC practice.  

Dr Penny Gilbert, partner at Powell Gilbert LLP, commented:

“We are delighted to welcome Ioana, Oliver, Anvitaa and Carolina to the Powell Gilbert team. They will be great assets to the firm as we continue to expand our offering to clients involved in patent litigation across Europe.”  

Powell Gilbert opens Düsseldorf office

Posted on by Jo Woods

15 SEPTEMBER 2025

European Intellectual Property law firm Powell Gilbert has today opened its new office in Düsseldorf led by renowned German patent litigator Dr Andreas Kramer. 

The new office, which was announced on 9 July, is now fully operational and serves as a continental European hub for Powell Gilbert’s award-winning European IP litigation practice, including its UPC practice, complementing the firm’s existing bases in Dublin and London.

Dr Kramer and team, including of Counsel Hannes Obex and Associate Andreas Ditler, bring a wealth of experience in high-profile cross-border patent disputes, particularly in the fields of electronics and telecommunications (including SEP/FRAND disputes), as well as mechanics, life sciences and medical devices. The team represent clients before various German and other local divisions of the UPC, the Central Division and the Court of Appeal, as well as before all levels of the German courts and the EPO.

The Dusseldorf team will be part of Powell Gilbert’s European patent litigation practice, including on cases before the UPC, the national courts and the EPO. 

 

Dr Penny Gilbert, partner at Powell Gilbert LLP, commented:

“We are delighted to confirm that our Düsseldorf office is now open. We are pleased to welcome Dr Kramer and his team into Powell Gilbert’s  award-winning UPC and UK litigation offering. Clients will benefit from the firm’s ability to offer seamless advice in developing pan-European strategies, including across the various divisions of the UPC.”

 

Dr Andreas Kramer, partner at Powell Gilbert LLP, commented:

 “It is a pleasure to open our doors in Düsseldorf and to welcome clients to our new office. Today marks an exciting step in delivering our market-leading practice in patent litigation before the UPC, the German courts and beyond, for organisations at the forefront of scientific and technological innovation.”

 

Powell Gilbert’s address in Düsseldorf:                               

Powell Gilbert LLP

Königsallee 2B, 5th Floor

40212 Düsseldorf

Germany

 

Find out more information about our Düsseldorf office here.

Powell Gilbert launches Düsseldorf office with leading patent litigation team hire

Posted on by Jo Woods

9 JULY 2025

London/Düsseldorf: European Intellectual Property law firm Powell Gilbert has announced the appointment of a new partner and the launch of an office in Düsseldorf to add to the firm’s existing bases in London and Dublin. This strategic expansion marks a significant milestone in the growth of Powell Gilbert’s European patent litigation capabilities and provides a significant boost to its award-winning UPC practice.

The new Düsseldorf office is expected to  open in September and will be anchored by an eminent team, led by renowned German patent litigator Dr Andreas Kramer. Dr Kramer brings a wealth of experience in high-profile cross-border patent disputes, including in the fields of electronics and telecommunications, particularly in SEP/FRAND disputes, as well as mechanics, life sciences and medical devices. He is joined by an outstanding team which includes Hannes Obex, Of Counsel, and Andreas Ditler, Associate. They have represented clients in many leading UPC cases, including before various German and other local divisions of the UPC and the UPC Court of Appeal, as well as acting in disputes before all levels of the German courts, and the EPO. They join the firm from VOSSIUS, where Dr Kramer has been a partner since 2018.

The team’s arrival will further strengthen Powell Gilbert’s European IP litigation practice, and expand its award-winning UPC team, which is one of the most active of any firm in Europe. Through their office in Dublin, the firm has acted in more than 40 UPC cases in the Court’s first two years, appearing before nine different local, regional, and central divisions, and the Court of Appeal. Dr Kramer and his team bring synergies to the development of the Powell Gilbert UPC practice, which will operate in integrated teams across all technical areas, and divisions, of the UPC.

The new Düsseldorf office will also provide an additional base within Europe from which the firm will conduct cross-border patent litigation coordination – with Dr Kramer’s team adding further expertise in advising major international corporations bringing proceedings across multiple jurisdictions.

 

Dr Penny Gilbert, partner at Powell Gilbert LLP, commented:

“This is a landmark moment for Powell Gilbert. Dr. Kramer and his colleagues have an exceptional reputation that is grounded in first class technical and scientific knowledge, combined with extensive experience. Germany is one of the most active patent jurisdictions in the world, and Düsseldorf lies at its core. It is a natural choice for our first office in continental Europe, bolstering our presence across the UPC landscape and expanding our capacity to support clients in a key jurisdiction..”

 

Alex Wilson, partner at Powell Gilbert LLP, commented:

“We are delighted to welcome Andreas and team to PG and excited to grow our UPC practice. Their arrival perfectly aligns with our strategy to deliver high-calibre patent litigation services across Europe, including across all divisions of the UPC, drawing on local jurisdictional knowledge and strong ties with local counsel.

Andreas is a great fit for us – he has handled some of the most important UPC cases in the SEP field before German local divisions complementing the fantastic start we have had across the UPC divisions. He is an internationalist who also brings a deep understanding of this key jurisdiction. It will be great to have him on board.

 

Dr. Andreas Kramer commented:

“Powell Gilbert has had a major impact on the European IP market, frequently advising clients in European patent litigation strategies and co-ordinating litigation across multiple European jurisdictions.  The firm has been very successful with its UPC practice to date, which is built on a comprehensive understanding of the strategic and technical dimensions of patent litigation. My team and I are very excited to bring our experience to the firm’s newly established Düsseldorf office, creating an exciting platform to deliver one of the most compelling patent litigation offerings in the UK, Germany and across the UPC area.”

2nd Anniversary of the UPC – Day 5 : Final Thoughts

Posted on by Jo Woods

When the UK officially withdrew from the UPC Agreement in 2020, it felt like a watershed moment for UK patent litigators. After all, London was due to host the life sciences Central Division as well as our own Local Division.  On a personal note, PG had been heavily involved in lobbying for the UK to sign the UPC Agreement and to play a central role in the UPC.  Members of the firm had contributed to the development of the various draft Rules of Procedure and a number of us were helping with the training of prospective UPC judges.

 

It was hard not to feel a sense of missed opportunity for the UK.

 

At PG, we never readily accept defeat.  Rather than dwell on what might have been, we adapted. With all our partners qualifying as Irish lawyers, we opened our office in Dublin just as the UPC itself opened its doors.  Sitting alongside our pre-eminent UK patent litigation practice, and bringing to bear our experience of co-ordinating and supporting patent litigation strategy across European national courts, together with our technical backgrounds, we launched ourselves into the new system.

 

We are pleased to have been right at the heart of the UPC action from day one, representing clients from a range of technical areas before nine different Local, Regional and Central Divisions and the Court of Appeal, in some cases several times over. It is a testament to the commitment and effort of our whole team that we were awarded Juve Patent’s inaugural UPC Firm of the Year Award, as well as MIP’s UPC Firm of the Year (UK) Award.

 

Without question, over the past two years the UPC has already fulfilled its promise: speed, international reach, consistency, and the technical expertise of its judiciary are drawing in the largest industry players not to mention innovative SMEs. Moreover, there is a strong sense of collaboration and community that the Court elicits, of bringing together knowledge and resources from some of the world’s leading patent venues, to create a more efficient way to resolve patent disputes for an area of high economic value, covering a large consumer base.

 

Looking ahead, all signs suggest continued growth and diversification in the UPC’s caseload. At PG we aim to match that growth and diversification in our own UPC practice, as we strive to deliver the most compelling offering to businesses enforcing, or defending against, patents in Europe. 

2nd Anniversary of the UPC – Day 4 : Life Sciences and Pharmaceutical

Posted on by Jo Woods

Pharmaceutical companies have taken a cautious approach to the UPC, with most key patents being opted out of the system, driven by concerns about central revocation actions and potentially losing a patent for all territories covered by the UPC.

 

The earliest disputes were extensions of existing battles between originators, with separate infringement and revocation claims between Sanofi / Regeneron and Amgen over an Amgen patent for PCSK9, an antibody that regulates cholesterol, and between GSK and Pfizer over GSK’s RSV vaccine patent.

 

Another of the earliest life sciences cases was 10x Genomics’ claim against NanoString. 10x Genomics obtained a preliminary injunction (PI) against NanoString before the Munich local division. However, this was overturned on appeal as the Court of Appeal held that it was likely that the patent lacked inventive step.

 

PI applications have also been heard in disputes between Novartis and Celltrion and Alexion and Amgen / Samsung Bioepis over biosimilar products. So far, there have been few traditional originator versus generic medicine disputes. An exception is Sanofi’s claims against Accord, Zentiva, Dr Reddy’s and Stada in respect of its patent for the chemotherapy drug Jevtana (cabazitaxel) and, more recently, Boehringer Ingelheim’s claim against Zentiva in relation to a patent for its pulomonary fibrosis drug Ofev (nintedanib). So far, no PIs have been granted in these cases and clarification is still required on what amounts to sufficient threat to launch a biosimilar or generic product as a basis for seeking a PI.

 

One area that has recently seen activity is in the mRNA vaccine field, with BioNTech having been sued by the non-practising entity Promosome alleging infringement of its patent relating to mRNA sequences by BioNTech’s mRNA SARS-CoV-2 vaccine Comirnaty. Whereas, Moderna has been sued in relation to its SARS-CoV-2 vaccine by Arbutus / Genevant under patents relating to lipid nanoparticle formulations.


As confidence in the UPC grows, it is likely that we will see a significant increase in the number of disputes involving pharmaceutical patents before the court celebrates its third anniversary.


All European Patents will fall within the UPC system after the end of the transition period and its current success suggests that it is unlikely that the transition period will be extended beyond the initial 7 years. So life science patentees wishing to avoid the system in future will need to consider their filing strategies for important new products carefully.

 

2nd Anniversary of the UPC – Day 3 : SEP

Posted on by Jo Woods

In the two years since its doors opened, the UPC has quickly become one of the go-to global venues for Standards Essential Patent (SEP) litigation, with a huge number of SEP disputes pending before the pan-European court. The UPC’s broad reach, fast timetable, and willingness to grant injunctions in SEP cases, makes it an attractive choice for SEP owners.

 

SEPs are those patents that are necessarily infringed during compliance with technical standards agreed by cross industry standardisation bodies. Examples include the 3G, 4G and 5G telecoms standards, WiFi standards, and video coding standards. SEPs must be licenced on a Fair, Reasonable and Non-Discriminatory (FRAND) basis.

 

SEP owners immediately realised that the UPC was a valuable tool to drive resolution of licensing disputes around their SEP portfolios.
Panasonic was one of the first SEP owners to bring proceedings in the UPC, asserting a number of patents which were alleged to be essential to the 3G and 4G standards against Xiaomi and OPPO, both significant Chinese mobile handset manufacturers. This dispute resulted in the UPC’s first substantive SEP judgment, which was issued by Mannheim Local Division. The court considered that the UPC had competence to set a FRAND rate for Panasonic’s portfolio, but dismissed the request that it do so, and also dismissed OPPO’s FRAND defence, concluding that OPPO had been an unwilling licensee in the licensing negotiations. Finding the patent valid and infringed, the Mannheim Local Division granted an injunction against OPPO in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Sweden.

 

The list of parties involved in subsequent SEP cases reads like a “Who’s Who” of global technology companies, including companies such as Lenovo, Ericsson, Nokia, Amazon, HP, Huawei, NEC, TCL, ZTE, Samsung, ASUS, MediaTek and Acer.

 

Many of these cases are part of a larger global dispute, with parallel SEP litigation also ongoing in countries such as the UK, Germany and the US. However, it is clear that the UPC has become a central plank in all SEP owner’s enforcement strategies.

 

As SEP cases continue to work their way through the UPC and further decisions issue, including at appeal level, there will inevitably be significant developments in the years to come.

2nd Anniversary of the UPC – Day 2 : Tech and Telecoms

Posted on by Jo Woods

With costs-shifting, technical competency, injunctive relief and a fast timetable to trial, the UPC has delivered a compelling option for the enforcement of tech patents in Europe.

 

Tech companies have always been more targeted in their patent enforcement activities in Europe, driven to Germany and the UK primarily because of their respective market sizes.  This led to a concentration of litigation expertise in these jurisdictions.  A key driver for this targeted approach was the cost of litigating piecemeal, particularly when compared to the US where a single action can lead to a judgement that has effect across all 50 states, an area comparable in size to Europe.

 

The UPC has gone a long way to rebalancing the playing field, allowing for one-stop enforcement of European patents across the 18 participating member states of the UPC, with more expected to join in the coming years.  Not only this, but with its technically qualified judges, drawn from a pool covering a diverse set of technical areas, the UPC has a material advantage over the US and other jurisdictions in providing a judicial bench with technically qualified members.  The fact that injunctive relief is available in the UPC (unlike usually in the US) is another major draw, with the prospect of a pan-UPC injunction (and potentially even broader) being a tantalising one.  

 

Forum shopping is another exciting feature of the UPC, and tech litigants have not been afraid to explore this.  Powell Gilbert has been involved in a number of tech cases in the UPC in a wide array of divisions, for example:  for Ocado against AutoStore (Munich Local Division, Dusseldorf Local Division and Nordic-Baltic Regional Division), for AIM Sport against Supponor (Helsinki Local Division, and the Court of Appeal), for ASUSTeK against Ericsson (Lisbon Local Division) and for ParTec against NVIDIA (Munich Local Division). 

 

Tech disputes attract interest from litigation funders, particularly those involving non-practising entities, and to date there has been considerable interest from funders in the UPC.  We are aware of a handful of funded UPC disputes, but as confidence in the system grows, we expect to see more activity in this area, which will in turn lead to more tech disputes in the UPC.  Of course, defendants wishing to take pro-active measures in the UPC are also interested in the options that the UPC offers. 

 

A particular area of interest is semiconductors and data centres, with considerable investment in Europe in both sectors.  This is likely to attract the attention of patentees and funders alike.  Of course the closely related SEP/FRAND sector is very busy and Powell Gilbert is right in the middle of cases in that sector as well in the UPC.

2nd Anniversary of the UPC – Day 1 : Medical Devices

Posted on by Jo Woods

The UPC has been a big hit for medtech litigation, with two of the UPC’s largest disputes being in this sector.  Medtech companies are arguably the most prevalent users of the Court to date.

 

Medical devices companies were early adopters of the new UPC. The option of centralising litigation in a single court as opposed to the more traditional fragmented nature of national litigation appears to have been an attractive option for companies such as Edwards Lifesciences, Abbott and Dexcom. Early adopters of the UPC also see the opportunity to influence the developing jurisprudence in what will be a key forum in global patent litigation for many years to come.

 

A team from Powell Gilbert, led by Siddharth Kusumakar and Bryce Matthewson, are acting for Edwards Lifesciences, the global leader in transcatheter prosthetic heart valves, which has already secured two UPC-wide injunctions against Meril Life Sciences’ heart valve products. Further UPC cases continue in respect of other Meril heart valve and accessory products across multiple UPC divisions. The UPC cases between Edwards and Meril have also been the first in the new Court to consider the balance between a patentee’s right to prevent the unauthorised use of its innovation and patient welfare, which has been a prominent and widely-debated issue in European patent litigation in recent years.

 

The dispute between Dexcom and Abbott concerned personal blood glucose monitoring devices, with both companies having popular consumer products in this lucrative and fast-growing sector. Following various hearings across multiple UPC divisions, the companies reached a global settlement preventing legal action between them for patent disputes for the next 10 years.

 

Settlement is a common outcome in many UPC disputes. Unsurprisingly, the significant commercial impact of UPC proceedings – and the prospect of a UPC-wide injunction – appears to be driving parties towards settlement which may make it an even more attractive forum for future litigation. The UPC will undoubtedly continue to attract medtech litigation with its wide ranging and relatively quick relief.

IAM Strategy 300, 2024

Posted on by Jo Woods

We’re very pleased PG partners Bethan Hopewell and Tess Waldron have been listed in this year’s edition of the IAM Strategy 300!

The IAM Strategy 300 recognises practitioners from across the IP industry for their exceptional success in delivering top-tier services which maximise the value of IP portfolios and help shape the future of IP.

Our thanks to the research team at IAM, and congrats to Bethan and Tess and all those listed in this year’s edition!

View the full results here.

Search
Linkedin