As global IP governance undergoes accelerated transformation, Europe is evolving from a traditional litigation hotspot into a decisive rule-shaping hub. Since the Unified Patent Court (UPC) came into operation in 2023, its centralised jurisdiction and cross-border remedies have begun redefining patent enforcement. At the same time, German courts — with their proven efficiency and mature case law — remain irreplaceable in bet-the-company disputes. Together, these parallel systems are creating a more diverse, strategy-driven litigation landscape in Europe.

For Chinese tech companies racing to expand globally, this shift brings both fresh institutional opportunities and steeper professional demands. Whether navigating SEP disputes, coordinating parallel proceedings across jurisdictions, or building evidence and technical arguments, what awaits them in Europe is no longer a series of standalone legal questions, but a highly systemic strategic challenge.

Within this landscape, BDPE Patent Attorneys and Attorneys at Law (hereinafter, "BDPE"), headquartered in Germany, continues to distinguish itself through a singular focus on patent litigation. Unlike conventional IP law firms, BDPE handles no prosecution work and runs no trainee program.

As a pure-play litigation team with deep battle-tested experience in complex technologies such as 5G and WiFi, the firm has built a reputation for technically complex, multi-jurisdictional litigation, particularly in standard-essential patent (SEP) and FRAND matters across fields such as cellular communications, WiFi, and IoT/connected vehicles. The team has played pivotal roles in multiple landmark cases shaping European SEP jurisprudence, and regularly represents leading Chinese technology companies including Huawei and Honor before German courts, the European Patent Office (EPO), and the UPC.

Combining deep technical expertise with litigation strategy, BDPE is known for its ability to translate complex technologies into clear, evidence-driven arguments aligned with judicial expectations across jurisdictions. In 2025, the firm was recognised for the third time with the "Outstanding International IP Service Teams" award.

Intellectual Property Observers recently spoke with the firm again to explore the strategic divergence between the UPC and German courts, how to navigate complex technical disputes, the real-world use of AI in litigation, and key insights from serving Chinese clients. Below is an edited transcript of the conversation.

Intellectual Property Observers: Over the past few years, what have been the most significant shifts in the global IP landscape, particularly in Europe and Germany?

BDPE: There have been two main developments. First, the UPC, launched in June 2023, has materially reshaped the patent litigation landscape in Germany and across Europe. For Chinese companies, the UPC introduces additional litigation options and greater strategic flexibility in enforcement and defence. Second, patent litigation has become markedly more complex. In telecommunications, disputes over SEPs have grown substantially more sophisticated, and this level of complexity is now extending into other high technology fields.

At BDPE, we have responded to these developments in a deliberate and structured manner. From the outset, we have been actively engaged in UPC proceedings and have continuously refined our litigation strategies to fully exploit the system’s procedural and substantive framework. At the same time, we have built a consistently senior, fully qualified litigation team: all our patent attorneys are admitted to represent clients before both German courts and the UPC. This ensures that every mandate is handled directly by experienced practitioners with full rights of audience across all relevant forums, enabling a seamless and strategically unified approach to multi-jurisdictional litigation.

In parallel, we have integrated AI into our daily practice. We use it both strategically and tactically as a "sparring partner" to stress-test arguments, anticipate opposing positions, and refine our own case theories. Applied with discipline and rigor within a confidential in-house environment, these tools enhance the precision of our legal and technical analysis and further strengthen our ability to maximise the value of our clients’ patent portfolios.

Intellectual Property Observers: How should Chinese companies make strategic choices between the UPC and German courts?

BDPE: There is considerable hype around the UPC, and many cases have been filed there. However, statistics show that most plaintiffs are German companies, and most defendants are German or French. So, for now, the UPC remains largely a European-focused forum. For Chinese clients — whether as claimants or defendants — the numbers are still comparatively low. At BDPE, we represent Chinese clients before the UPC, both as claimants and as defendants.

If a Chinese company is sued at the UPC, there is no strategic choice — you simply respond. The real strategic question arises when a Chinese company intends to initiate litigation. This depends on its objectives.

Take a mobile telecommunication company as an example: Germany is a large market. Securing an injunction in Germany alone can achieve a significant portion of the desired outcome. A German injunction is highly effective — if you cannot serve the German market, it has a major impact on your entire European, and potentially global, business.

The choice between the UPC, German courts, or parallel proceedings should be based on several key considerations: whether the patent is an SEP, whether Germany is the main target market, and whether the company operates in a sector such as pharmaceuticals, where a pan-European approach may be more relevant. 

If France is the main market, we generally recommend the UPC, as it is more patentee-friendly than French courts, particularly in SEP cases. In short: according to our experience, if Germany is the primary market, German courts are preferable. If the focus lies elsewhere — especially where a broader European coverage is required — then the UPC is often the better choice.

Intellectual Property Observers: BDPE is recognised as one of the most active litigation teams before the German courts, the EPO, and the UPC. Could you elaborate on what "most active" refers to?

BDPE: In our view, activity should not be measured solely by the number of filings. Many cases settle early, whereas we are often retained for disputes that proceed to oral hearings and final decisions. We are typically retained for cases where clients are committed to seeing the case through to the end. In that sense, we are very active before all three forums.

Currently, the UPC is our second busiest forum. German courts remain our busiest, largely because they have significantly accelerated their timelines. At the UPC, the wait for an oral hearing is on average approximately 13 months, against the procedural target of approximately 12 months. Before the leading German infringement venues, the equivalent timeframe is now 8 to 10 months.

So, if a client prioritises speed and clear SEP case law, the German courts are the preferred choice. For example, we are currently representing major Chinese clients such as Huawei and Honor in several WiFi SEP cases and mobile communication cases.

Intellectual Property Observers: BDPE has played key roles in a number of high-profile landmark cases before the above courts. Could you elaborate on BDPE's efforts contributed to these cases?

BDPE: We have been privileged to play key roles in several landmark cases including Huawei v. ZTE, Unwired Planet v. Huawei, Conversant v. Huawei, Huawei v. Amazon, Huawei v. Netgear, and Huawei v. MediaTek.

In Huawei v. ZTE — during his time at Bird & Bird — Dr. Friedrich Emmerling was responsible for the selection and strategic assessment of the asserted patents. Based on those patents, Huawei successfully enforced its patents before the German courts and ultimately before the CJEU, securing a landmark SEP judgment that continues to shape European SEP and FRAND jurisprudence. The outcome reflected both the strength of Huawei's patent portfolio and the attorneys' solid coordinated work.

In Unwired Planet v. Huawei, we were successful in defending Huawei in Germany by attacking Unwired Planet's patents. That long-standing success is one reason why Huawei has worked with us for over 15 years.

In Huawei v. Amazon and Huawei v. Netgear, Netgear involved both UPC and German proceedings, while Amazon was before the German courts. These cases also produced important decisions, particularly at the UPC, regarding patent validity, infringement, and how the UPC handles SEP cases.

In Huawei v. MediaTek, Huawei recognised us for "making history". It was a heavy but relatively short battle, as MediaTek ultimately withdrew after realising its position was untenable.

Intellectual Property Observers: Where do the greatest challenges typically lie in these high-stakes, multi-jurisdictional cases involving cutting-edge technology? What is BDPE's methodology for overcoming these challenges?

BDPE: We focus exclusively on litigation within defined areas of technology. This allows us to maintain a highly experienced team that regularly competes with other top-tier firms. Because this is our core and continuous practice, we develop a strong understanding not only of how judges in different courts are likely to assess technical issues, but also of how the opposing side typically builds and adjusts its arguments. This forward-looking perspective is essential to providing robust and reliable advice to clients.

From a technical perspective, disputes involving technologies such as 5G or WiFi require more than technical accuracy — they require translation. Judges are legally trained and must be able to grasp complex technical issues within a limited timeframe. Drawing on more than 30 years of experience in the field, Dr. Friedrich Emmerling brings deep familiarity with the underlying technologies. However, familiarity alone is not decisive. The real challenge lies in distilling highly complex systems into clear, structured, and legally meaningful arguments that courts can readily work with. Technical depth is necessary, but the ability to simplify without loss of precision is equally critical.

A third dimension is evidence generation and testing. In many cases, standard specification alone is not sufficient to substantiate infringement or validity arguments. It becomes necessary to conduct targeted technical testing and measurements. Many of our attorneys bring prior industry experience, which means they understand these technologies not only in theory, but also in practice. We know how to design and execute tests, how to guide clients in doing so, and when necessary, we carry out the testing ourselves. With our in-house laboratory capabilities, we are also able to generate and structure technical evidence in a form that is directly usable in litigation.

These combined capabilities — strategic anticipation, technical translation, and evidence-based validation — are what enable us to handle high-stakes, technically complex disputes effectively.

Intellectual Property Observers: The laboratory innovation for clients to test infringing products and generate evidence goes beyond the traditional scope of law firm services. What was the original intention behind this innovation?

BDPE: We established our own laboratory at the time of founding BDPE, in response to a recurring evidentiary challenge in SEP litigation. In standard-essential patent cases, the patent is typically mapped against technical standards. However, many elements within those standards are optional. The decisive question therefore becomes how to demonstrate, with evidentiary precision, that a specific optional feature is actually implemented in the accused product.

Answering this question requires technical measurements. In practice, this means acquiring the relevant devices and verifying whether they perform the functions in question under real-world conditions. While external testing laboratories can be used, their outputs are often not designed for litigation purposes and may not translate easily into court proceedings — particularly from the perspective of judicial accessibility and evidentiary structure.

For this reason, BDPE built its own in-house laboratory. This allows us to design and conduct tests directly within the litigation team, ensure full control over methodology, and, most importantly, structure the results in a way that is both technically robust and readily understandable for judges.

Equally important, it enables us to align technical evidence with the specific evidentiary expectations of different European courts. In this way, the laboratory is not a standalone technical facility, but an integrated part of our litigation strategy — bridging the gap between complex technical functionality and courtroom-ready evidence.

Intellectual Property Observers: As an SEP expert, could you highlight some of the most impactful recent changes and trends, and discuss their concrete implications for companies?

BDPE: While certain procedural details continue to evolve, the fundamental principles remain unchanged. Parties must act as willing licensors or willing licensees.

In practice, some defendants believe they can avoid injunctions through tactical manoeuvres, but if you follow established best practices, the outcome is relatively predictable. As seen in Huawei v. MediaTek, adherence to these principles is key.

The challenge arises where these standards are not observed consistently. In such situations, courts are unlikely to depart from established approaches.

In short, while procedural nuances continue to evolve, the core FRAND framework established by the European courts remains comparatively stable. In practice, parties that act consistently as willing licensors or willing licensees are generally able to operate within a relatively predictable legal framework.

Intellectual Property Observers: With Chinese tech companies increasingly going global, BDPE now serves not only large tech giants like Huawei but also many emerging tech firms. What are the main differences in the demands of these two client groups?

BDPE: The difference is substantial.

Huawei, for example, has over 15 years of litigation experience in Germany and Europe, and extensive experience in China. Their IP teams are highly sophisticated, and collaboration is straightforward.

Emerging companies, by contrast, are often facing their first litigation in Europe — or even their first litigation altogether. They require guidance on process, risk, and strategy, as well as reassurance.

For these clients, our role extends beyond legal representation to include training and consulting support. For large clients, it is primarily about execution, doing the work of lawyers and patent attorneys.

Intellectual Property Observers: The proportion of Chinese legal talent within the BDPE team is increasing. What is the strategic consideration behind this team planning?

BDPE: The increasing proportion of clients from emerging markets, particularly China, has naturally shaped how we structure our team. In this context, the presence of Chinese-qualified patent attorneys is not simply a matter of language capability, but of perspective and alignment.

European patent litigation—especially for first-time litigants—can be procedurally and culturally unfamiliar. When companies are sued in Germany or before the UPC, the legal framework, terminology, and procedural expectations can initially feel distant. Having colleagues who can interpret not only the language, but also the procedural logic and strategic implications within a familiar cultural framework, significantly improves communication and decision-making.

Our Chinese patent attorneys are trained and qualified within both European and Chinese professional environments. This dual perspective enables them to bridge differences in legal practice, anticipate potential misunderstandings, and ensure that strategic instructions are accurately translated into the procedural reality of German and UPC proceedings.

Ultimately, they bridge language and cultural gaps, helping clients feel more comfortable and understood. They also help translate procedural and strategic nuances between jurisdictions, reducing misunderstandings and improving collaboration. It is less about language alone and more about ensuring that cross-border litigation is handled with clarity, precision, and full mutual understanding between international in-house teams and European counsel.

Intellectual Property Observers: Based on your experience working with Chinese in-house legal teams, what is the biggest challenge in collaboration? What capabilities impress you most?

BDPE: One of the key challenges in cross-border litigation lies in maintaining a clear distinction between procedural systems. Proceedings in different jurisdictions should not be conflated. We have observed that in-house IP teams of major Chinese companies are highly experienced in domestic litigation. That experience is extremely valuable, but it must be carefully adapted when applied to European proceedings, as the procedural frameworks and strategic dynamics are fundamentally different.

While the underlying technical arguments are broadly universal, their legal deployment is jurisdiction-specific. The same technical point may be highly effective in one system, yet carry different weight or require a different framing in another, such as Germany, the UPC, or the United States. This divergence in legal methodology is one of the central challenges in international patent litigation.

Because we work at this interface on a daily basis, we are able to identify such differences early, address them in a structured manner, and guide clients through the necessary adjustments in approach. This helps ensure that strategic decisions are aligned with the realities of each jurisdiction and reduces the risk of misalignment in case strategy.

At the same time, working with leading Chinese companies is particularly rewarding. Their in-house teams are highly sophisticated, both technically and strategically, and operate at a very high level. This makes the collaboration highly efficient and intellectually engaging. It is also one of the reasons we focus strongly on the Chinese market: the combination of technical depth and strategic capability on the client side leads to a very strong professional exchange in complex cross-border matters.

Intellectual Property Observers: If you could share one heartfelt practical advice with Chinese tech entrepreneurs currently in or considering entering the European market, what would it be?

BDPE: Our advice is straightforward: if you are considering initiating litigation, the selection of counsel is critical.

We have, in certain instances, advised clients against proceeding with litigation where the prospects of success were insufficiently clear, even where valid patents were involved. Our role is not to encourage litigation at all costs, but to provide an objective assessment of whether a case is likely to succeed. Litigation is inherently outcome-driven — no party enters proceedings expecting to lose.

For that reason, we do not adopt a volume-driven approach. We prioritise long-term relationships and a candid evaluation of risk, even where that means advising against enforcement. In some cases, this may lead clients to seek alternative views elsewhere. However, if a weak case proceeds and ultimately fails, the reputational and commercial consequences can be significant for the client as well as for counsel. Our position is therefore to provide a fully reasoned, experience-based assessment, clearly articulate the risks, and, where appropriate, recommend not to proceed.

This approach reflects a broader principle: effective litigation strategy is not about pursuing every available case, but about selecting the right cases.

This is particularly important because the first enforcement action in a jurisdiction such as Germany or before the UPC often sets the tone for how a company is perceived in the market. A successful first case based on a strong patent can establish credibility and strategic leverage, signaling the strength of a company’s IP portfolio. Conversely, an unsuccessful first action based on a weak position can have the opposite effect, shaping perceptions in a way that is difficult to reverse.

So, in short, our advice is to choose the right law firm — one that provides honest advice, i.e., one that provides a thorough, experience-based assessment, clearly communicates risks, and prioritise long-term success over short-term gain. That is also our approach.

Related:

Announcement | 2025 Outstanding International IP Service Teams

Patent Litigation Strategies for Chinese Enterprises in Germany

An Interview with BDPE—Meeting your trusted litigation partner in German and European courts