Christopher Weber

Lawyer

Vita

My name is Christopher Weber. I am founding partner of Kather Augenstein and have specialised in patent litigation for more than 15 years. Before joining Kather Augenstein, I practised patent law for many years at a leading international law firm in Düsseldorf.

The focus of Christopher Weber’s work is in the field of technical intellectual property rights (patents and utility models). M experience ranges from the management of individual national proceedings to the coordination of international disputes concerning a wide variety of intellectual property rights. The proceedings conducted by me cover virtually the entire range of technologies, including the fields of software, electronics, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, mechanics, and plastics processing. I represent my clients in front of the civil courts and assist in legal validity proceedings before the European Patent Office, the Federal Patent Court and the Federal Court of Justice. In addition, I also provide advice for unfair competition litigation with a technical focus.

My assistant is Claire Edmonds.

The start of the Unified Patent Court is a big challenge for everyone, but we are perfectly prepared for you.

Christopher Weber, Partner

I am a member of the German Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (GRUR) and the Licensing Executives Society (LES) and publish regularly in the fields of intellectual property and litigation law.

Representative cases
  • Representation of an international electronics company in a dispute concerning standard-essential patents (BGH Datenpaketumwandlung)
  • Representation of a biotechnology group in a dispute concerning bioreactors

  • Representation of a mobile phone company in a dispute on more than 45 patents against companies from Taiwan, Canada, and the US

  • Representation of an Italian pharmaceutical company on metered dose inhalers in main and summary proceedings (Higher Regional Court Dusseldorf – InstGE 10, 124 – Inhaler)

  • Representation of an U.S. pharmaceutical company in three actions concerning monoclonal antibodies and respective production methods

  • Representation of a leading German pharmaceutical company against a Danish competitor in several patent infringement disputes on insulin pens

  • Representation of a German inventor in a patent dispute against a leading furniture retailer (Regional Court Dusseldorf – 4b O 256/08 – PET-Bottle-Holder)

  • Representation of Scandinavian, German and British manufacturers of DVDs and set-top boxes on up to 12 MPEG-2 decoding patents respectively, inter alia before the Regional Court Dusseldorf, 4a O 81/07 – MPEG2 standard II

  • Representation of an SME in disputes on robotic lawnmowers, garden pumps and snow shovels

  • Representation of a Scandinavian-Japanese mobile equipment company in a multi-jurisdiction dispute over essential and non-essential patents against a Korean manufacturer of mobile phones

Publications
  • Limits to the consideration of facts known to the court, Higher Regional Court Frankfurt a. M., Deciusion dated 9.6.2022 – 6 U 134/21, GRUR-Prax 2022, 483 [German]
  • Admissibility of a container signature in patent nullity proceedings, FCJ decision dated 24.5.2022 – X ZR 82/21, IPRB 2022, 225-226 [German]

  • The submission of documents pursuant to § 142 ZPO in patent nullity proceedings, communication of the German Patent Attorneys, mid. issue 03/2021 [German]

  • Comment to Higher Regional Court Rostock: selective persecution for the purpose of membership promotions abusive in law, decision 17.11.2020 2 U 16/19, GRUR-Prax 2021, 66 [German]

  • Comment to Federal Court of Justice: requirements of the compulsory licence objection under cartel law, decision 05.05.2020, KZR 36/17, GRUR-Prax 2020, 552 [German]

  • Comment to Higher Regional Court Munich I.: Willingness of the infringer to license in the case of compulsory licence defence under cartel law, decision 10.09.2020, 7 O 8818/19, GRUR-Prax 2020, 512 [German]

  • Comment to Federal Court of Justice: relevance in patent nullity proceedings, decision 13.02.2020, X ZR 6/18, GRUR-Prax 2020, 372

  • The submission of documents pursuant to § 142 ZPO in patent invalidity proceedings, communication of the German Patent Attorneys, mid. issue 06/2020 [German]

  • Special need for legal relief after expiry of the patent in suit and potential accumulation of claims PatG § 22, 81, 99, ZPO §§ 260, 263-bladder catheter set, communication of the German Patent Attorneys, mid.issue 11/2019

  • No isolated approach to variations, Federal Court of Justice, Judgement of 19.03.19 (X ZR 11/17), GRUR-Prax 2019, 383 [German]

  • Counter-offer of the sole defendant subsidiary not FRAND-compliant, Regional Court Düsseldorf, Judgement of 09.11.18, IPRB 06/2019, 224-225 [German]

  • No restriction of competition despite marketing ban and non-aggression clause in settlement agreement, EuG, 12.12.18, GRUR-PRAX, 100 [German]

  • Federal Court of Justice clarifies criteria in determining the protected subject matter of a registered design, Federal Court of Justice, decisions dated 20 December 2018 (I ZB 25/18 and I ZB 26/18), IPSANZ, Edition 117, September 2019

  • Courts clarify Art. 16 of EC Regulation No 110/2008 on the definition, description, presentation, labelling and the protection of geographical indications of spirit drinks, Current Developments – Europe – IPSANZ, Edition 116, June 2019

  • HRC Dusseldorf refuses to follow FCJ regarding cease and desist obligations in German patent cases, Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Decision of 30.04.2018, I-15 W 9/18 – Rasierklingeneinheiten, Intellectual Property Forum – IPSANZ, Issue 114 December 2018

  • Rectification of FRAND- obligations, Regional Court Mannheim, Decision of 10 November 2018 – 7 O 28/16, BeckRS 2017, 146786, GRUR-Prax 15/2018 [German]

  • Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf: Inspection of files during FRAND-proceedings, Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Decision of  25 April 2018 – I-2 W 8/18 (Regional Court DUS), GRUR-PRAX 11/2018 [German]

  • FCJ: The need for standing to sue for nullity suits after patent expiration, FCJ decision of 16 January 2018 – X ZR 89/15 (Federal Patent Court), BecksRS 2018, 2860, GRUR-Prax 9/2018, 215 [German]

  • The Wundversorgung decision – proportionality and injunctive relief in Germany, FCJ decision of 11 October 2017 – I ZB 96/16, IPKat, 25 April 2018

  • Solomonic comission? The EU communication on standard essential patents, Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte, April 2018, 153-156 [German]

  • One wrong decision beats multiple sales, BGH decision of 4 May 2017 – 1 ZR 208/15, IPRB 2018, 4-5 [German]

  • The term “Detox” is a health claim, comments on BGH, decision of 29 March 2017 – I ZR 71/16, IPRB 2017, 269 [German]

  • Reimbursement of licensing fees for retroactive distruction of a SEP?, GRUR, 12/2017, 1182 [German]

  • Düsseldorf Court of Appeal in SISVEL v Haier publishes “guidebook” to SEP litigation under Huawei/ZTE, IPKat, 7 November 2017

  • Discriminatory FRAND-Offer, Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, decision of 30 March 2017 – I-15 U 66/15, GRUR-PRAX 20/2017, 465 [German]

  • Higher Regional Court Hamburg: Settlement of SEP-infringement, Higher Regional Court Hamburg, decision of 16.02.2017 – 3 U 15/15, GRUR-Prax, 5/2017, 368 [German]

  • Scope of claim during further development of an employee invention which was not claimed in time, IPRB, 7/2017,  BGH, decision of 14.2.2017 –X ZR 64/15 – Lichtschutzfolie [German]

  • The sun rises on plausibility, but where (and when) will it set?, IPKat, 25 April 2017

  • German Court prowls into the realm of confidentiality clubs, IPKat, 7 February 2017

  • Legal consequences of successful FRAND-objection, GRUR-Prax, 03/2017, 67-69 [German]

  • Abusive forum-shopping in trademark preliminary injunction proceedings , IPRB, 2/2017, 33 [German]

  • Federal Court of Justice: Regional courts exclusively competent for all penalty complaints, GRUR-Prax, 01/2017, 20 [German]

  • Regional Court Mannheim: Assertion of standard-essential patents, GRUR-Prax, 23/2016, 535 [German]

  • Abstract on unfinished research work not harmful to novelty or inventiveness, Comments on FSC19.3.2016 X ZR 148/11, IPRB 2016, 270-271, [German]

  • Enforcement of standard essential patents, comments on Regional Court Mannheim Judgment of 1 July 2016 – 7 O 209/15, GRUR-Prax 2016, 535 [German]

  • Comments on Higher Regional Court Stuttgart of 8 October 2015 – 2 U 25/15, No right to silence or to refuse to give evidence of infringer against right to information, IPRB 2016, 222-223 [German]

  • Comments on Higher Regional Court Frankfurt of 3 March 2016 – 6 U 29/15, Claim to remuneration of freelancers for inventions, IPRB 2016, 151-152 [German]

  • Strategic advantage or incalculable risk – vehicle procurement in China, along with Junge-Gierse, ChinaContact September 2015

  • The development of the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Justice regarding computer-implemented developments, IPRB 2015, 163 –166 [German]

  • Licenses in danger – For insolvency-resistance for licenses, Reinraum Magazin 1, 2015, 38 [German]

  • Enforcement in patent infringement proceedings, Chosen problems during injunctions, IPRB 2014, 252-255 [German]

  • Comments on Federal Court of Justice– Palettes Container II, “Customary usage in the trade” gains importance in determining infringement in repair/reconstruction cases, World Intellectual Property Review, March 2013, p. 38 et seq.

  • Private right of prior use according to § 12 PatG, for enforcement and implementation in patent proceedings, along with Harmsen, IPRB 2013, 18-20 [German]

  • Comments on Federal Court of Justice – Dynamic generation of documents, Is Germany clearing the way for software patents?, Electronics Group Newsletter 2010

Lectures
  • PAVIS Seminar (online) “Die ZPO im Patentnichtigkeitsverfahren” (co-lecturer Dr Peter Kather), 26 January and 2 February 2021

Christopher Weber has fantastic technical knowledge, which he combines with a sense of humour.

Legal 500 Germany, Ranking 2022

Effective and very efficient working method. Christopher Weber has a very quick technical grasp.

Legal 500 Deutschland, Ranking 2022