Munich Unified Patent Court Advanced Research Center (MUPatC)

About the MUPatC

Snow-covered building and tree on the Geschwister-Scholl-Platz — © Kai Wengler

The Munich Unified Patent Court Advanced Research Centre (MUPatC) provides a forum for advanced research and exchange between academia and practice concerning all relevant and topical questions of patent law (and associated regulatory instruments, such as Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs) and Regulatory Data and Market Exclusivity in the pharma sector). The main objective is to provide a platform for European and International academics, justices and practicing attorneys to discuss the most topical developments and questions in connection to the new Unified Patent and the growing case law of the Unified Patent Court (UPC). In this context, the Centre’s current work focuses on the most imminent future challenges of innovation law: Past and ongoing research projects cover inter alia standard essential patents (SEPs/FRAND), the fine-tuning of the patent system and complementary regulatory tools in the pharma-sector, current issues of patent enforcement in general, and possible challenges to the patent system in connection with networked AI-based innovation and simulation.

Directors

Prof. Dr. jur. Matthias Leistner, LL.M. (Cambridge)

University Professor

Send an email

+49 89 2180-71240

Prof. Dr. jur. Ansgar Ohly, LL.M. (Cambridge)

University Professor

Send an email

+49 89 2180-1269

Both directors are editors of the journal "Gewerblicher Rechtsschutz und Urheberrecht" (GRUR) (together with Dr. Klaus Bacher, Presiding Judge at the Federal Court of Justice) as well as members of the Editorial Board of the journal GRUR Patent.

Team

Name	Email	Position
Antoine, Lucie	lucie.antoine@jura.uni-muenchen.de	Academic staff
Berns, Sebastian	sebastian.berns@jura.uni-muenchen.de	Academic staff
Kapischke, Justus	justus.kapischke@jura.uni-muenchen.de	Academic staff
Scheer, Mathias	mathias.scheer@jura.uni-muenchen.de	Academic staff
Stadler, Sandra	sandra.stadler@jura.uni-muenchen.de	Academic staff
Zurth, Patrick	patrick.zurth@jura.uni-muenchen.de	Academic staff

News & Events

Opening Event "The UPC At Two – Trends And Perspectives" on 23 May 2025

– SAVE THE DATE –

The Munich Unified Patent Court Advanced Research Centre (MuPatC) opens its doors: The Unified Patent Court’s (UPC‘s) second anniversary gives us occasion to discuss topical issues in the UPC’s case law and beyond concretely and with a particular focus on open legal questions and problems. A stellar line-up of speakers (judges, academics and practitioners) will discuss in Munich, outlining and evaluating the most recent UPC’s case law and developing possible future perspectives of Unified Patent Law. The European perspective will be complemented with guests from the U.S. and Asian countries to provide for an outside view on the success of the new Unified Patent.

– MORE INFORMATION TO FOLLOW SOON –

Events are organized with the support of CIPLITEC.

Outputs

Leistner/Zurth/Stadler: GRUR 2024, 1249, Unterlassungsanordnungen gegen Mittelspersonen im Einheitspatentsystem.
Injunctions against intermediaries in the unitary patent system.
Berns: GRUR 2024, 1768-1776, Wie weit reicht das EPG(Ü)?
Leistner: GRUR 2024, 1194-1198, Schutz von Unternehmensgeheimnissen vs. angemessener Zugang zu Informationen in SEP/FRAND-Prozessen vor dem EPG.
Leistner: GRUR 2024, 514-518, Die erste substanzielle Entscheidung des EPG-Berufungsgerichts.

Leistner/Berns: GRUR 2024, 184-187, Zu den Grenzen von einstweiligen Verfügungen vor dem EPG.
Leistner: GRUR Patent 2024, 327, SEPs in the UPC-System: How the UPC should implement Huawei/ZTE. Available at SSRN
Leistner: GRUR Patent 2024, 272, SEPs in the UPC-System: The Issue of Market Dominance after Huawei/ZTE.
Leistner/Berns: JIPLP 2024 (Vol. 19, Issue 10), 764-769, The UPC CoA’s first substantive order—central issues clarified, but on a high level.
Ohly: Reparatur, Neuherstellung und der Erschöpfungsgrundsatz im europäischen Patentrecht, in: Harmsen/Verhauwen, Festschrift für Thomas Kühnen, 779-792.
Reparation, recreation and the principle of exhaustion in European patent law.
Leistner: Leistner, Injunctive Relief in the Upc – A Case for Carefully Limited Flexibility,
in: Thouvenin (Hrsg.), Kreation Innovation Märkte - Creation Innovation Markets - Festschrift Reto M. Hilty, 619-636. Available at SSRN
Leistner: PharmR 2023, 619-631, Off-label use im Bereich der Orphan Drugs.
Off-label use in the field of orphan drugs.
Leistner: GRUR 2023, 1578, Einstweilige Unterlassungsverfügung des EPG wegen Patentverletzung.
Temporary injunction issued by the EPG for patent infringement.
Leistner: GRUR 2023, 1497, Relevanz von Geschäftsereignissen nach Schutzdauerablauf für den patentrechtlichen Schadensersatzanspruch – Schlusswort.
Relevance of business events after expiry of the term of protection for the claim for damages under patent law - Conclusion.
Ohly: GRUR 2023, 1104, Anmerkung zu OLG München, Urt. v. 15.12.2022 - Verjährung des Patentvindikationsanspruchs.
Comment on Judgement of the OLG Munich of December 15, 2022 - Limitation of patent vindication claims.
Ohly: Das Einheitliche Patentgericht - Verlegenheitslösung oder Vorbild?, in: M. Pechstein et al., Zur Verwirklichung eines Vereinten Europas, Festschrift für Rudolf Streinz zum 70. Geburtstag, Beck, München 2023, S. 331-341.
The Unified Patent Court - Stopgap solution or role model?
Scheer: Market and Competition Law Review 7 (1) 2023, 45-76., (No) Access to the Standard under Art. 102 TFEU.
Leistner: GRUR 2022, 1633, Unterlassungsverfügung im Einheitspatentsystem.
Injunction order in the unitary patent system.
Leistner/Kleeberger: GRUR 2022, 1261, FRAND-Erklärungen ohne Rechtswahl am Beispiel der Standardisierungsorganisationen ITU/ISO/IEC: Ein praxisrelevantes dogmatisches Problem im internationalen Privatrecht.
FRAND declarations without choice of law using the example of the standardization organizations ITU/ISO/IEC: A practice-relevant dogmatic problem in private international law.
Leistner/Pless: European Union, in: Contreras/Husovec (eds.), Injunctions in Patent Law - Trans-Atlantic Dialogues on Flexibility and Tailoring, Cambridge University Press, 2022, 26-64.
Leistner: GRUR 2022, 609, Relevanz von Geschäftsereignissen nach Schutzdauerablauf für den patentrechtlichen Schadensersatzanspruch.
Relevance of business events for the patent law damages claim in case of events after the expiry of protection.
Ohly: Stockholm Intellectual Property Law Review 2022, 58, Injunctions in the UPC and the principle of proportionality.
Scheer/Schrom: GRUR 2022, 315, Tagungsbericht: Der patentrechtliche Unterlassungsanspruch nach dem 2. PatMoG.
Ohly: GRUR 2022, 303, Der Ausgleichsanspruch gemäß § 139 Abs. 1 S. 4 PatG als Rechtsfortwirkungsanspruch.
The equalisation claim under § 139 (1) sentence 4 of the Patent Act (PatG) as a legal continuation claim.
Scheer/Schrom: JZ 2022, 28, Tagungsbericht: Ausschließlichkeitsrechte in der Krise.
Leistner: GRUR Int. 2021, 925, Towards an Access Paradigm in Innovation Law?
Ohly/Stierle: GRUR 2021, 1229, Unverhältnismäßigkeit, Injuction Gap und Geheimnisschutz im Prozess - Das Zweite Patentrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz im Überblick.
Disproportionality, injunction gap and secrecy protection during procedure - An overview of the second patent law modernisation act.
Ohly: GRUR 2021, 304, Acht Thesen zur Verhältnismäßigkeit im Patentrecht.
Eight theses on proportionality in patent law.
Lersch: Haftung von Leitungsorganen im Immaterialgüterrecht, Mohr Siebeck, 2021.
Leistner/Perino: PharmR 2020, 743, Second medical use Patente und Arzneimittelrabattverträge – Ein ganzheitlicher Lösungsvorschlag auf kartellrechtlichem Wege.
A proposal for second medical use patents and drug discount agreements from an antitrust perspective.
Leistner/Kleeberger: GRUR 2020, 1241, Die Drittwirkung von FRAND-Erklärungen aus kartellrechtlicher und vertragsrechtlicher Sicht.
The third-party effect of FRAND declarations from an cartel and contract law perspective.
Ohly: Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law – Conclusion, in: N. Bruun, G.B. Dinwoodie, M. Levin, A. Ohly (Hrsg.), Transition and Coherence in Intellectual Property Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2020, S. 489-512.
Zurth: Chapters regarding characteristic obligations in licensing contracts, licenses in insolvency cases, in: Obergfell, Eva Inés/Hauck, Ronny (eds.), Lizenzvertragsrecht, de Gruyter, 20. Auflage 2020.
Perino: Second medical use Patente, Nomos, 2020.
Leistner: European Experiences: EU and Germany, Part III/Chapter 15, in: Hilty/Liu (eds.), SEPs, SSOs and FRAND – Asian and Global Perspectives on Fostering Innovation in Interconnectivity, Routledge, 2019. Available at SSRN
Zurth: GRUR 2019, 143, Bereicherungsrechtliche Implikationen im Immaterialgüterrecht.
Leistner: GRUR 2018, 697, Exzenterzähne 2.0: Zum weiteren Schicksal einer problematischen BGH-Rechtsprechung in ihrer praktischen Umsetzung durch die Tatsacheninstanz.
Criticism of recent unfair competition case law in the realm of misappropriation.
Ohly: The jurisdiction of European courts in patent disputes, European Patent Academy, München 2018.
Leistner/Simon: GRUR Int. 2017, 825, Auswirkungen des Brexit auf das europäische Patentsystem.
Brexit & the future Unitary European Patent System.
Leistner/Simon: Auswirkungen eines möglichen Brexit auf das europäische Patentsystem, in: Metzger (ed.), Methodenfragen des Patentrechts, Theo Bodewig zum 70. Geburtstag, 2018, 79-101.
Impact of possible Brexit on the European Unitary Patent system.
Ohly: Privatrechtsdogmatik und geistiges Eigentum, in: H.C. Grigoleit/J. Petersen (Hrsg.), Privatrechtsdogmatik im 21. Jahrhundert, Festschrift für Claus-Wilhelm Canaris zum 80. Geburtstag, De Gruyter, Berlin 2017, S. 987-1018.
Private law dogmatics and intellectual property.
Ohly/Streinz: GRUR Int. 2017, 1, Can the UK stay in the UPC system after Brexit?.
Ohly: GRUR 2016, 1120, Wirkung und Reichweite der Registervermutung im Patentrecht.
The effect and reach of the register-presumption in patent law.
Leistner: GRUR 2016, 217, Vollstreckung von Urteilen des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts in Deutschland.
The enforcement of judgments of the Unitary Patent Court in Germany.
Ohly/Sattler: Bürgerliches Recht und geistiges Eigentum, in: D. Klippel/M. Löhnig/U. Walter, Grundlagen und Grundfragen des Bürgerlichen Rechts, Gieseking, Bielefeld 2016, S. 165-189.
Civil law and intellectual property.
Ohly: Exhaustion of Rights: A Concept for the Digital World?, in: D. Beldiman (Hrsg.), Innovation, Competition, Collaboration (Edward Elgar, Cheltenham 2015), S. 188-197.
Leistner: JIPLP 2014, 75, Structural aspects of secondary (provider) liability in Europe.
Leistner: The Requirements for Dependency Licenses in Patent Law, in: Hilty/Liu (eds.), Compulsory Licensing, Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg 2013.
Ohly: Concluding Remarks: Postmodernism and Beyond, in: A. Ohly/J. Pila (Hrsg.), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013, S. 255-269.
Ohly/Brinkhof: Towards a Unified Patent Court in Europe, in: A. Ohly/J. Pila (Hrsg.), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013, S. 199-216.
Ohly: European Fundamental Rights and Intellectual Property, in: A. Ohly/J. Pila (Hrsg.), The Europeanization of Intellectual Property Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford 2013, S. 145-163.
Ohly: ZGE 2012, 419, Auf dem Weg zum Einheitspatent und zum Einheitlichen Patentgericht - Licht am Ende des Tunnels oder Tunnel am Ende des Lichts?.
On the way towards a unified patent and the Unified Patent Court - Light at the end of the tunnel or a tunnel at the end of the light?
Leistner/Kleinemenke: Centralized Patent Enforcement: Experiences and Problems with the US-System, in: Hilty/Liu (eds.), The Enforcement of Patents: Comparing Asian, European and American Experiences, Kluwer Law International, London 2012, 395-431.
Leistner/Kleinemenke: Intellectual Property Law and Policy Journal (Japan) 2011, 119, 特許法の発展に対する制度設計の影響―欧州及び米国におけるコンピュータ・プログラムとビジネス方法の特許可能性を例として― (=The Impact of Institutional Design on the Development of Patent Law – Patentability of Computer Programs and Business Methods in Europe and the United States of America as a Topical Example; Translation into Japanese: Prof. Suzuki).
Ohly: LMK 2011, 326137, Anmerkung zu EuGH, Urt. v. 18.10.2011, Rs. C-34/10, Brüstle/Greenpeace (zur Patentierbarkeit von Stammzellen).
Comment on the Judgement of the ECJ of October 18, 2011, Case C-34/10, Brüstle/Greenpeace (on the patentability of stem cells).
Ohly: ZGE 2010, 365, Common Principles of European Intellectual Property Law?.
Leistner/Kleinemenke: ZGE 2010, 273, The Impact of Institutional Design on the Development of Patent Law – Patentability of Computer Programs and Business Methods in Europe and the United States of America as a Topical Example.
Ohly: Einführungen zu den Textausgaben des deutschen Patentgesetzes und des deutschen UWG in chinesischer Sprache, China Law Press, Beijing 2010.
Introductions to the text editions of the German patent act and act against unfair competition in Chinese.
Ohly: Three principles of European IP enforcement law: Effectiveness, proportionality, dissuasiveness, in: J. Drexl/R. Hilty/L. Boy/C. Godt/B. Remiche (Hrsg.), Technology and Competition, Contributions in honour of Hanns Ullrich, Brüssel, larcier 2009, S. 257-274.
Ohly: The assumption of risk, in: G. Woodman/D. Klippel (Hrsg.), Risk and the Law, Routledge Cavendish, London, New York 2009, S. 85-94.
Ohly: NJW 2009, XIV, Standpunkt: Patenttrolle - Diagnose und Therapie.
Position: Patent trolls - diagnosis and therapy.
Ohly: Reverse Engineering: Unfair Competition or Catalyst for Innovation?, in: W. Prinz zu Waldeck und Pyrmont/M. Adelman/R. Brauneis/J. Drexl/R. Nack (Hrsg.), Patents and Technological Progress in a Globalized World, Liber Amicorum Joseph Straus, Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg 2008, S. 535-552.
Ohly: GRUR Int. 2008, 787, "Patenttrolle" oder: Der patentrechtliche Unterlassungsanspruch unter Verhältnismäßigkeitsvorbehalt? - Aktuelle Entwicklungenim US-Patentrecht und ihre Bedeutung für das deutsche und europäische Patentsystem.
"Patent trolls" or: The claim to injunctive relief in patent law under reservation of proportionality? - Current developments in US patent law and their significance for the German and European patent system.
Leistner: Sinnvolle Reichweite des Patentschutzes II – Software, in: Eifert/Hoffmann-Riehm (Hrsg.), Geistiges Eigentum und Innovation, Innovation und Recht I, Duncker & Humblot, Berlin 2008, S. 267.
Reasonable scope of patent protection for software.
Leistner: Computerimplementierte Erfindungen im System des ´Geistigen Eigentums´, in: Peifer/Depenheuer (eds.), Geistiges Eigentum: Schutzrecht oder Ausbeutungstitel?, Zustand und Entwicklungen im Zeitalter von Digitalisierung und Globalisierung, Bibliothek des Eigentums, Springer, Berlin 2008, 187-222.
Computer implemented inventions in the system of intellectual property law.
Ohly: Einwilligung und "Einheit der Rechtsordnung", in: M. Pawlik/R. Zaczyk (Hrsg.), Festschrift für Günther Jakobs zum 70. Geburtstag, Carl Heymann, Köln 2007, S. 451-468.
Consent and "unity of the legal system".
Ohly: MdP 2006, 241, Zur Wirkung prioritätsgleicher Patente.
On the effect of equal-priority patents.
Ohly: Privacy, Property and Personality - Civil Law Perspectives on Commercial Appropriation (mit: H. Beverly-Smith und A. Lucas-Schlötter), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005.
Leistner: ZWeR 2005, 138, Intellectual Property and Competition Law: The European Development from Magill to IMS Health Compared to Recent German and U.S. Case Law.
Leistner: IIC 2005, 749, Comment on German Federal Supreme Court Standard-Spundfass.
Leistner: IIC 2004, 859, Farewell to the ´Professor´s Privilege´, Ownership of Patents for Academic Inventions in Germany Under the Reformed Employees´ Inventions Act 2002.

Research Projects

Patent law is based on the principle of territoriality, yet modern network technologies and international value chains transcend national borders. The research project examines whether patent infringement can occur when a claimed method or system is used partly within the country of protection and partly abroad. The project explores the territorial scope of patent law, both from a German law perspective and in the context of the European unitary patent.

This project deals with the question of whether and on which basis SEP-holders are obliged to FRAND-licensing after the SEP was transferred and thus is no longer hold by the company which had initially undertaken a FRAND-commitment.

The dissertation will use specific examples of applications of personalised medicine to elaborate the challenges arising for patent law in this area. In particular - with regard to the patenting of so-called ‘building blocks’ - the scope of protection as well as the individual infringements are to be analysed. In addition, an attempt will be made to develop a regulatory solution for access to patent-protected inventions in personalised medicine that meets the interests of the parties involved.