The transaction involved the acquisition of essentially all of Sympatex Technologies GmbH’s assets, in particular its trademark rights and other key intangible assets. With this acquisition, Pidigi ensures the continuation of the day-to-day operations of the long-established trademark Sympatex.

ADVANT Beiten provided Pidigi with comprehensive advice on all legal aspects of the transaction, including the structuring and execution of the asset deal, as well as matters relating to corporate law, intellectual property law and labour & employment law.

Advice on the Italian legal aspects was provided by Stefano Dindo, a lawyer at the law firm Dindo, Zorzi e Associati in Verona which referred the matter to ADVANT Beiten.

Since 1986, Sympatex Technologies GmbH has been developing innovative, PFAS-free membrane technologies for functional clothing, footwear, protective clothing and technical applications. Pidigi S.p.A. has been operating internationally since 1953 as a supplier of materials to the footwear, leather goods and sportswear industries.

Advisor to Pidigi S.p.A.:
ADVANT Beiten: Matthias W. Stecher (in charge, IP/IT), Virginia Mäurer, Maike Pflästerer (both Labour & Employment), Christoph Heinrich (Antitrust), Tanja Hogh Holub and Christian Hess (both IP/IT), Mario Weichel (Corporate/M&A).

Dindo, Zorzi e Associati: Stefano Dindo

Public Relations
Frauke Reuther
Manager Kommunikation
ADVANT Beiten
+49 (69) 75 60 95 - 570
frauke.reuther@advant-beiten.com

From Property Rights to Instruments of Power

Intellectual property rights – particularly patents – are traditionally understood as tools for protecting technical innovations. However, their role extends beyond exploitation through licensing or litigation. Rather, IP rights can be leveraged strategically to block competitors from market access, strengthen one's own strategic position, or even control critical infrastructures.

IP rights can thus become a strategic instrument through the consistent use of the existing legal framework, for example, by withdrawing licenses from certain players or by selectively sharing know-how. The accumulation of extensive IP rights portfolios in security-relevant technologies – such as satellite communication, drone technology, sensor systems, cryptography or artificial intelligence – can also serve as a strategic deterrent.

Those holding exclusive rights in key markets can not only block third parties from entering the market, but also activate regulatory leverage – for instance in the context of export controls, security reviews or investment screening procedures.

In this context, IP rights can be used strategically in a number of ways:

• Strategic Acquisition and Monopolization: Companies may seek to acquire or assert control over critical IP rights in key areas as a means of excluding competitors, shaping supply chains or restricting access to essential technologies.
• Enforcement of Sanctions and Export Controls: IP licenses or the transfer of IP-protected technologies can be leveraged to pursue strategic goals or undermine the capabilities of competitors or adversarial players. This applies in particular to dual-use technologies that can be used for both civilian and military purposes.
• Active IP Protection and Enforcement: Safeguarding relevant technologies from unauthorized acquisition or reverse engineering requires a robust and proactive approach. This includes not only preventive measures and internal security protocols but also the consistent extrajudicial and judicial enforcement of IP rights so as to prevent the outflow of expertise and ensure long-term competitiveness.
• Defense against Unwanted Technology Transfer ("IP leakage"):
  IP assets and sensitive technologies must be protected from strategically motivated access attempts by potentially adversarial partners or entities.

Leveraging the Legal Framework

For companies in the defense and aerospace sector, but also for companies that develop dual-use technologies, it is essential to develop a proactive IP strategy that addresses the aforementioned risks and at the same time optimally protects and uses their own IP assets. The existing legal framework offers numerous ways to achieve this objective:

1. Robust IP Protection: One essential measure is the implementation of a comprehensive IP strategy, including the protection of trade secrets and technical know-how. This also entails the consistent implementation of strict internal processes to protect confidential information.
2. Due Diligence for M&A Transactions and Cooperations: In M&A transactions or R&D partnerships, a thorough IP due diligence process is essential – not only to uncover potential infringement risks but also to assess dependencies on critical technologies or third-party rights.
3. Strategic Licensing and Technology Transfer Agreements: By drafting contracts appropriately and implementing technology transfer controls, companies can manage access to their IP rights while ensuring compliance with export control laws. This can include the inclusion of "clawback" clauses that allow for the withdrawal of licenses in the event of certain geopolitical developments.
4. Active enforcement of IP rights: In the event of IP infringements, swift and consistent legal enforcement is crucial. This can include legal proceedings, arbitration or recourse to customs authorities to prevent the sale and import of infringing products.
5. Geopolitical Risk Management in Contract Drafting: Contracts with international partners should explicitly include clauses that address the impact of sanctions, export restrictions or other geopolitical events on IP usage rights.

Conclusion

The strategic deployment of IP rights described above illustrate the great importance of IP rights in a geopolitical context. For companies operating in the defense, aerospace dual-use sectors, a sound understanding of these relationships and the resulting dynamics is essential. IP rights are no longer just a competitive factor but an integral part of risk mitigation and national security.

And as is the case with the GDPR violations, the sanctions envisaged, which are based on a company's annual global turnover, are indeed quite respectable, if not impressive. The prohibited violation of certain consumer interests can incur costs of up to 4% of the annual turnover.

Now the European Commission, together with national consumer protection authorities from 23 member states plus Norway and Iceland, presented the results of a Union-wide review of retail websites and shopping apps.

The review focused on three specific types of manipulative practices (so-called "dark patterns") designed to encourage consumers to take actions that are not in their real interest. These included the hiding of information relevant to decision-making, fake countdowns, and websites whose design was intended to pressure consumers into concluding purchase contracts and subscriptions.

The results are disappointing:
The acting Commissioner for Justice said that of the nearly 400 online stores checked, almost 40% had used manipulative practices to exploit consumers' weaknesses. It would now be up to the national authorities to exert influence on the retailers and take further measures if necessary.

The coordinated review of store providers is a so-called "sweep" to verify compliance with EU consumer protection law. Enforcing the correction request is now the second step, non-compliance with which may entail such a severe fine in the constellations described.
In her statement at the time, Vera Jourová said that cheaters should not get off lightly. Thus, it therefore remains to be seen with some excitement whether the first fines in the millions will now follow that will certainly make it into the headlines.

Daniel Trunk

To the European Commission press release
To our original blog post

Our partners Dr Andreas Lober (Media/Entertainment), Dr Wolfgang Lipinski (Labour Law) and Dr Gerrit Ponath (Private Clients and Nonprofit Sector) are listed as leading names in their respective legal areas. Wojtek Ropel (Media/Entertainment) and Katharina Fink (Private Clients and Nonprofit Sector) are among the names of the next generation. In addition, numerous lawyers are on the list of recommendations for the various legal areas.

Legal areas/practice areas in the ranking:

Labour Law, Corporate Law and M&A (medium-sized deals), Industrial Property (Trademark Law and Competition Law), Real Estate and Building Law (Real Estate Law and Project Development), Information Technology (Data Protection and IT/Digitalisation), Media (Gaming, Entertainment, Press Law and Publication Law), Private Clients and Nonprofit Sector, Public Law (Planning and Environmental Law, Public Procurement Law, State Aid Law).

Congratulations to the practice groups and industry groups and to our recommended lawyers.

Background:
The Legal 500 has been published for 35 years and is an independent guidebook. Law firms and lawyers are recommended exclusively on the basis of their performance. In-house lawyers are given a comprehensive overview of around 400 commercial law firms and 2700 lawyers in Germany. The analysis covers 23 practice areas and 90 rankings. As part of the research of The Legal 500 Deutschland, hundreds of interviews are conducted with lawyers and more than 23,000 clients are surveyed.