At the 14th IP and Competition Forum, held at the DPMA in Munich in June 2026, injunctions were placed at the centre of the global patent strategy debate.
Moderated by Rodolfo Barreto, Partner of Licks Attorneys, the panel brought together the Chief IP Litigation Counsel, EMEA at Huawei; the Vice President, Legal Counsel at Qualcomm; the Head of IP Litigation at Dell; and the Head of IP Disputes at Amazon.
The debate made clear that licensors and licensees view injunctions very differently. For patentees, an injunction protects the core of the patent right: the right to exclude. For implementers, the same remedy can shift the balance of power in licensing negotiations.
A judicial perspective at the Forum emphasised that, in Germany, injunctions are the law. The Munich judge was sceptical of broad proportionality considerations, underlining that injunctive relief remains a central consequence of patent infringement under German law.
That helps explain why Germany remains such an important litigation venue. When asked why parties go to Germany, the response from the Qualcomm side was direct: because they cannot get an injunction back home. Germany remains attractive not only because of its legal expertise, but because injunctions are a real and available remedy.
The panel also moved beyond the usual licensing framework. As Qualcomm’s top litigator put it, “sometimes, the objective is not simply to obtain a licence. There are instances where one simply wants to exclude a competitor in order to preserve a unique business edge.”
But the public-interest question remains difficult. Amazon’s Head of IP Disputes, countered that “the needs and interests of the public must come first.” She questioned where the public interest lies when licensing revenues do not go to the public or to the state, but to a private entity. From that perspective, the Amazon view was clear: eBay must stay.
Dell’s Head of IP Litigation highlighted the implementer’s concern. An injunction, he said, “risks tilting the bargaining power in licensing negotiations.” The threat of exclusion can create pressure to settle on terms that may not reflect the true value of the patent.
This is the real divide. Licensors see injunctions as essential to preserving the patent right and preventing hold-out. Licensees see them as a remedy that can create disproportionate commercial pressure, especially in complex products, platforms, and supply chains.
The discussion closed on a larger question: are injunctions themselves the problem, or do they expose deeper tensions in patent valuation, licensing transparency, and the balance between exclusion and access?
The 14th IP and Competition Forum showed why injunctions remain at the centre of gravity in global patent strategy. They shape litigation outcomes, negotiation behaviour, forum selection, and the balance between private rights and public consequences.
Disclaimer: The views described below reflect comments made by speakers in their personal capacity and do not necessarily represent the views of the organiser.