Context: In the early 2010s, the fiercest rivals among outside counsel in the “Smartphone Patent Wars” were Bardehle Pagenberg’s Tilman Mueller-Stoy (“Müller-Stoy” in German) (who is now also a professor), representing Microsoft, and Quinn Emanuel’s Marcus Grosch, who represented Motorola Mobility and its temporary parent company, Google. Initially, other Bardehle partners than Dr. Mueller-Stoy represented Apple, but lost two out of three defensive cases to Dr. Grosch, which resulted in the enforcement of injunctions and led Apple to rely on other firms, particularly Freshfields and recently also Hogan Lovells and Hoyng Rokh Monegier, for its defensive needs in Germany. There was a time when Dr. Grosch was clearly considered Germany’s number one patent litigator, but at this point, Professor Mueller-Stoy is the undisputed “King of UPC Lawyers” (and the Bardehle firm is involved with approximately one in every three UPC cases on side or the other).
What’s new: Spanish patent licensing firm Ona Patents has brought infringement actions against Apple and Google in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) and the Munich I Regional Court over location-positioning techniques involving wireless networks. After approximately 10 years during which Apple used other defense counsel in Germany, though Bardehle continued to work for Apple on patent prosecution, Apple has turned to the firm again, but this time around relying on Professor Mueller-Stoy. And Google’s first choice in the U.S. as well as other jurisdictions where they have offices is Quinn Emanuel. As a result, Professor Mueller-Stoy and Dr. Grosch find themselves, presumably for the first time ever, in a joint defense group.
Direct impact: These patent cases are clearly just about money. One of the two patents-in-suit (the one that is being asserted in German national court) has already expired, so those cases is only about damages. The patent-in-suit in the UPC won’t expire for another four years, but any injunction would obviously only serve the purpose of obtaining a settlement as there are no other strategic interests.
Wider ramifications: For now, Ona Patents’ lawsuits do not appear to raise any overarching issues.
The UPC’s dysfunctional case management system is an unmitigated disaster that the court and those running it should be ashamed of, but from time to time one can retrieve useful information there. It lists the following two actions, both over EP2263098 on the “positioning of mobile objects based on mutually transmitted signals” and before Judges Berenice Thom, Margot Kokke and Ronny Thomas of the Dusseldorf Local Division:
- Ona Patents SL v. Apple, case no. ACT_11910/2024
- Ona Patents SL v. Google, case no. ACT_11921/2024
The assignment history of the European patent is presumably the same as that of U.S. Patent No. 8,456,364 from the same family. The original filing was made by three Finnish inventors, who assigned their rights to a Finnish entity named Ekahau Oy. In 2013, it was provided to Horizon Technology Finance (of Connecticut) as security, and transferred to Airista (of Delaware) in 2016. Via another Delaware company, Airwave, the patents finally reached Ona Patents, which is based in Barcelona and run by Raúl Diaz Morales, who until last year was vice president of patent advisory services at IPwe.
Today, a spokeswoman for the Munich I Regional Court responded to an inquiry by ip fray with the information that Ona Patents SL has also brought the following two cases in that German national court over EP1354491 on “location estimation in wireless telecommunication networks”:
- Ona Patents SL v. Apple, case no. 7 O 3151/24
- Ona Patents SL v. Google, case no. 7 O 3152/24
The court will hear both cases on February 13, 2025.
These cases are reminiscent of the Skyhook v. Google litigation in the United States of about a decade ago in the sense that the patents-in-suit cover techniques for determining a location based on nearby wireless networks. The patents Ona Patents is asserting now cover different location-positioning strategies, such as analyzing the signal strength of nearby WiFi routers as well as cellular baseband stations. Apparently Google’s Android mobile operating system and Apple’s iOS use such techniques in situations where GPS is unavailable, which can happen, such as inside buildings.
Ona Patents is represented by Kather Augenstein co-founder Dr. Christof Augenstein, who is clearly among Germany’s leading patent litigators both in the UPC (on which he focused early on) as well as in national court. He has frequently represented Ericsson and is presently also enforcing standards-essential patents for Panasonic.
There is no question that both Professor Mueller-Stoy and Dr. Grosch are both absolute professionals who are going to put any old rivalry aside in order to achieve the best possible results for their clients. And technically, those are separate cases anyway, but there are overlapping issues. With respect to claim construction and invalidity, a significant degree of coordination is in the defendants’ interest.
Among German patent litigators, the two are the equivalents of Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo. Professor Mueller-Stoy is more of a team player, like Messi, who makes his entire team stronger, while Dr. Grosch does not even bring patent attorneys along (which depending on the technical depth of a patent can be a limiting factor, and is not advisable in front of patent examiners, who have more of a technical than legal background) and rarely lets any of his team members speak in court.
Both have had remarkable successes at different times. There was a point when Microsoft was close to winning a German injunction, from Presiding Judge Dr. Matthias Zigann, that would have resulted in the shutdown of Google Maps, but the case was stayed and the patent declared invalid. Quinn Emanuel has not recently been involved with the highest-profile patent cases in Germany, though Google always turns to that firm in general and, in Germany, to Dr. Grosch in particular. By contrast, Bardehle Pagenberg has evolved as the clear first choice for many parties when it comes to the UPC, and the fact that Apple is now giving that firm another chance is also attributable to the reputation that Professor Mueller-Stoy and his team have built, especially with respect to UPC litigation.