Interview With J. Christian Wichard, Deputy Director General at the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection in Germany – History of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) – Important Changes in IP Law in Europe – the EU IP Reform Package – Copyright and AI – Remuneration of Creators in the Platform Economy – IP Fridays Podcast – Episode 165

I am Rolf Claessen and my co-host Ken Suzan and I are welcoming you to episode 165 of our IP Fridays podcast!

Today’s interview guest is Christian Wichard, who is the Deputy Director General of at the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection and he has been doing that for about 14 years, with a short brek from 2009 to 2014, where he as Deputy Director General at the WIPO. He is overseeing all legislative efforts of the German government related to intellectual property and we talk about many interesting topics. He had large contributions to the becoming of the Unified Patent Court, we talk about the role of AI in IP, about new reforms in the IP world. Stay tuned for this interesting interview!

Before we jump into this interview, I have news for you:

The USPTO has launched DesignVision, the first AI-powered image search tool available to design patent examiners through the Patents End-to-End (PE2E) system. This tool uses artificial intelligence to support prior art searches in design patent examination and is part of the agency’s broader efforts to modernize workflows and reduce pendency.

In Europe, the EPO’s Enlarged Board of Appeal issued a much-anticipated decision in G 1/23 on July 2. The Board clarified that a product already on the market before the filing date of a European patent application cannot be excluded from the state of the art under Article 54(2) EPC merely because its internal structure or composition could not be analysed or reproduced. Furthermore, any technical information about that product that was publicly available before the filing date forms part of the state of the art—regardless of whether the product itself could be reverse-engineered.

Just weeks earlier, on June 18, the same Board issued another important decision in G 1/24, ruling that claims must always be interpreted in the context of the description and drawings—not only when ambiguities arise. This decision aligns EPO practice more closely with that of the Unified Patent Court and is a major step toward harmonization.

Speaking of the UPC, its case management system (CMS) transitioned to a new platform between July 3 and July 8. During the switchover, certain functionalities—like opt-out requests and representative registrations—were temporarily limited. Since July 8, all filing capabilities have resumed, supported by updated FAQs and training materials.

Finally, the EUIPO has expanded its mediation service to cover all inter partes proceedings in the areas of trademarks and designs. As of June 2, 2025, parties in opposition or invalidity proceedings can now opt into mediation free of charge, fully online, and on a voluntary basis.

Now let’s jump into the interview:

In this episode of IP Fridays, Rolf Claessen speaks with J. Christian Wichard, Deputy Director General at the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection. Wichard has been one of the most influential figures in shaping intellectual property law and policy in Germany and Europe over the past two decades.

He reflects on the most significant developments in European IP law during this time. First and foremost is the creation of the Unitary Patent and the Unified Patent Court (UPC), which he describes as a historic milestone for patent protection and enforcement across Europe. He explains why this new system makes litigation more accessible, enhances legal certainty, and strengthens Europe’s competitiveness.

The second major development he highlights is the EU Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market, particularly the implementation of Article 17 concerning the liability of content-sharing platforms. He outlines the challenges of balancing copyright protection with fundamental rights and explains how Germany approached the directive’s implementation.

Third, Wichard discusses the Second Patent Modernization Act in Germany, which addressed some of the systemic effects of bifurcation in patent litigation. He explains how the reform introduced measures to better synchronize infringement and invalidity proceedings, and how it introduced a safety valve allowing courts to deny injunctions in exceptional cases.

In a detailed discussion about the UPC, Wichard shares his personal involvement in both the early conceptual phase and the more recent ratification process. He explains why it took so long to bring the UPC into force and how political, legal, and procedural hurdles—especially in Germany—had to be overcome. He also outlines the core advantages of the UPC: its broad territorial scope, procedural efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and the expertise of its judges. According to Wichard, the UPC is well positioned to become one of the leading patent litigation venues worldwide.

The conversation then turns to the current EU IP reform package. Wichard explains the status of various legislative dossiers, including the proposal for compulsory licensing in crisis situations, the introduction of unitary supplementary protection certificates (SPCs), and the regulation of standard-essential patents (SEPs). He offers insights into the controversial withdrawal of the SEP proposal and the diverging views among member states.

Another focal point of the interview is the intersection of copyright and artificial intelligence. Wichard discusses whether copyrighted works can be used to train AI systems, whether AI-generated content can be protected under copyright law, and what challenges generative AI poses for the remuneration of human creators. He emphasizes the need for legal clarity, transparency, and a fair remuneration system in the age of AI.

Finally, Wichard talks about a new official expert opinion on remuneration in the platform economy and for private copying in Germany. Although the report had not yet been published at the time of the interview, he reveals that its main conclusion is that the current system does not require fundamental reform, but that improvements in transparency and efficiency are necessary. The report is expected to be published shortly and may already be available when this episode airs.

This is a rare opportunity to hear from someone who has been deeply involved in drafting and negotiating major pieces of IP legislation at the national and European levels. Whether you are a practitioner, policymaker, or simply interested in the future of IP in Europe, this episode offers valuable insights into where we stand and where we are heading.

If you don’t know Christian Wichard, he is the Deputy Director General at the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection of the German government, and I’m very happy that you are taking your time to be on IP Fridays.

J. Christian Wichard: Thank you for having me. Thanks.

Rolf Claessen: Thank you very much for being here. Just to clarify, and that’s important: everything that you mention here in this interview is your personal opinion and you don’t speak for the government of Germany. That is clear. And you have been Deputy Director General at the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection for over 10 years now and you are in charge of everything related to intellectual property in the government of Germany and so that’s very interesting for our listeners of IP Fridays, of course.

What have been the top three things you remember from this whole time that in your personal opinion have the biggest impact in the intellectual property world?

J. Christian Wichard: First let me start with a small clarification. I’ve been Deputy Director General in charge of IP matters twice: first between 2006 and 2010. Then I moved to WIPO as DDG, came back in 2015 to the ministry, and back again in 2019.

And yes, I mean there are a number of IP issues that have been around during the last 10 years. And I think by far number one is the creation of the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court. I think in my view this is almost a once-in-a-lifetime event, at least in the area of intellectual property. You have a patent that is valid currently in 18 countries and possibly in the future in the whole European Union.

You have a specialized patent jurisdiction with judgments that are enforceable in all 18 participating countries. I think that in itself is already a huge achievement that makes patent litigation much easier in Europe. It lowers the threshold for SMEs to enter the patent system. It also contributes to Europe’s competitiveness and I think it’s also a unifying force beyond the patent family. So it’s the first civil or private law European litigation system we have.

Number two was already a bit more difficult. So here I’m hesitating a little, but probably it’s the EU directive on copyright and related rights in the digital single market that was passed in 2019 and our implementation in Germany. In translation, that would mean the law on the responsibility of service providers under copyright for the sharing of content. Already the directive was hotly disputed and heavily criticized, but in the end I think it did its job. It aims at extending copyright and related rights into the digital environment, including all limitations and exceptions, and this is a very complex process.

And hotly debated in particular was Article 17 of the directive, which clarifies the responsibilities of content-sharing platforms. And here just to explain a little: these platforms make a business out of making content available online, but traditionally they haven’t really borne any responsibility for copyright infringements that happen on these platforms.

So new is now that they can be held accountable for material that is on their platform. The directive considers this posting by third parties by users as an act of communication to the public by the platform itself, which might trigger liability.

So that means that they must either try to get the license for the copyright-protected works that are posted there or must prevent it from being made available even if they haven’t received a warning. So this goes beyond the notice-and-take-down system that was established by the e-commerce directive and this also provoked the discussion on upload filters, with demonstrations in the streets and everything.

But at the same time, the DSM directive also stipulates a principle of proportionality. It explicitly states that there should be no general obligation for providers to monitor everything at all times and it also safeguards exceptions and limitations. So in a way you’re looking at a difficult balance to implement into national law, given also the different legal traditions that we have.

So that was the challenge we were facing: trying to implement that while doing justice both to copyright protection as well as to exceptions and limitations — the countervailing freedoms and rights that have to be guaranteed — and to make that implementable in a way that is also possible in a technical environment. I think in the end, in our implementation, we’ve done a reasonably good job. That was indirectly confirmed by the guidelines that were later passed by the EU Commission — after we had already passed our law — and also by the ECJ judgment that came out a bit later. So I think that was number two.

And perhaps number three is the Second Patent Law Modernization Act, which we passed in 2021. Not so much for all the rules that are new or have been reformed there, but more because it touches on some key features of the German patent litigation system.

In its key part, this modernization act seeks to address certain consequences of the bifurcation we have — the separation between, on the one hand, invalidity actions that are handled by the Federal Patent Court, which includes technical judges, and on the other hand, infringement actions that go to the general civil courts, some of which are rather specialized.

This bifurcation is a very German tradition. The reason why we have it is that patents are granted only after extensive examination by technical experts at the patent office, and they should not be declared invalid quickly by legal judges. So that’s why the infringement court should normally treat a patent as valid — unless they have very clear indications that it might not be valid — and then they can hold the procedure. But typically, they would have to treat a patent as valid because it has been examined. That also means that infringement actions can proceed really quickly.

So under a year you can have a judgment that is enforceable in Germany, and you can have a strong injunction against an infringer. That, in a way, is the strength of the German system — the speed with which you can get an infringement judgment.

But the declaration of invalidity then takes place, as I said, before the Federal Patent Court in a separate procedure involving technical expert judges. Those principles are still valid and Germany is keeping them. Problems sometimes arise because there often is a time gap between the invalidity action at the Federal Patent Court and the infringement action. The invalidity action often starts later and takes longer than the infringement proceedings. That means that in extreme cases it might happen that you get an injunction issued on the basis of a patent that is later declared invalid by the Federal Patent Court.

In extreme cases only — but still, it might happen. Then there is the question of patent quality. Is the assumption still correct that patents are granted on the basis of a thorough technical examination? Some are questioning that — less so with regard to the German office, but more so with regard to the European Patent Office. I’m not saying that EPO patents are bad, but there has been a patent quality debate relating to the EPO.

The Second Patent Modernization Act has made efforts to address the negative consequences and to address them within the system — without changing bifurcation, but to make it a bit more viable. So there is a shorter deadline: it is meant to speed up invalidity proceedings. There are shorter deadlines for filing a response in invalidity actions before the Federal Patent Court.

And then the Federal Patent Court also should issue a first early substantive assessment as to the validity within six months. So parties should get an indication of whether the court thinks that a patent is valid or not reasonably early in the procedure. That can then also be included in the infringement procedure. The infringement court can decide whether — on the basis of this early opinion — it might have to hold the proceedings until the invalidity action is over, because there may be indications that the patent is invalid. That is meant to bring both procedures closer together.

Another aspect of the act was that we also expressly included a provision into the law that now allows a court — in exceptional cases — to grant damages rather than an injunction, where granting an injunction would be disproportionate. So that is meant to serve as a safety valve and not meant to undercut the strong and enforceable patent rights, which are a cornerstone of the German patent system.

Sorry, that was a bit long, but I think those are still three key things that happened over the last ten years.

Rolf Claessen: Yeah.

J. Christian Wichard: But again, I mean, I think number one definitely is the unitary patent and the Unified Patent Court.

Rolf Claessen: We will talk about the Unified Patent Court. But first, maybe also my feeling is that the German patent system — one of the major differences compared to other important jurisdictions — is the injunction. That you can get an injunction, compared for example to the US, where it is very difficult to get one. And my understanding and feeling is that since the reform, there has not been a lot of case law denying injunctions and just awarding damages. So I think the big fears of patentees have not become true so far. Let’s see how this develops.

J. Christian Wichard: It’s just a safety valve. So it’s not meant to be the regular feature of patent litigation.

Rolf Claessen: You have watched very closely how the Unified Patent Court was established — and in fact, you have played an important role in its formation. Can you briefly describe your role in the process that brought the UPC into reality?

J. Christian Wichard: Yes. I participated in two phases, in a way. First, in the early and formative phase between 2006 and 2009. And then in 2023 again, as Deputy Director General here in the ministry.

In the early phase, our job was to voice the key concerns of the German government. Those concerns were regarding the Community Patent system, as it was called at the time — which then became the Unitary Patent.

The aim was an efficient patent granting system with a limited language regime that would lower translation costs, but also reduce legal uncertainty arising from translation requirements. Because you never really know whether there are differences between the different language versions, especially with regard to the claims.

Also, the price of a unitary patent should not exceed that of a European patent valid in four countries — cost-benefit efficiency was key. The second major concern was to ensure a high-quality and efficient court system. High quality also meant specialization: a specialized patent court with expert judges, including technical judges.

So that was the German position from the outset — an official procedure that should run quickly and effectively. The key decisions in this regard were already taken in 2009 and 2010, when the EU Council adopted the first common position. Most of the substance had already been developed by then.

Then in 2019, when I was back at the ministry, we had to address a lot of difficulties, both constitutional and political. This included legal challenges in Germany, and of course, the Brexit. Trying to sort all of that out was quite a handful.

We had to pass the ratification law, oversee the development of secondary legislation like the Rules of Procedure — which were the first European set of rules for a private court system — as well as the schedule of fees and so on. In the end, we supported the establishment of the court, which administratively still functions like a startup with a very small secretariat and administrative unit. So they still need a lot of help from the member states.

Rolf Claessen: Right. It took a couple of decades, as you mentioned, for the UPC to finally open its doors. The idea is really old, and the process has been quite long and tedious in some phases. Why, in your personal opinion, did it take so long to establish the Unified Patent Court?

J. Christian Wichard: I’m not going to talk about the period before 2009, because I think there was quite a mix of factors. One was the tension between linguistic diversity and efficiency — between a multilingual approach and a more streamlined system.

After the key features were established in 2010, the difficulties arose not so much from the substance of the system, but from external factors. First, there was an opinion from the ECJ that was necessary. Member states had asked the ECJ for an opinion, which was delivered in 2011. Everything was fine, we just needed to make a few adjustments.

Then Spain and Italy didn’t want to participate — again, for linguistic reasons. So in 2012, for the first time in EU history, reinforced cooperation was used. The Council adopted the European Patent Package without Spain and Italy. That included the Unitary Patent.

In 2013, the Agreement on the establishment of the Unified Patent Court was signed by almost all member states. But then Spain challenged the Council decision before the ECJ, and it took until 2015 to get a decision confirming everything was in order.

Next came difficulties in Germany. A constitutional complaint was filed in 2017, which meant we had to suspend ratification. We wanted to be one of the first countries to ratify, but couldn’t. The Federal Constitutional Court issued a decision in 2020 — not on substance, but on procedural grounds. So we had to pass a new law, which we did quickly.

Then another constitutional complaint was filed, which again delayed things, but this time the court acted faster and confirmed the law in 2021. Only then were we able to ratify.

And of course, there was the Brexit. The UK was one of the three countries with the most patent activity, whose ratification was required for the system to enter into force — alongside Germany and France. When the UK left the EU, we had to adjust the agreement, and Italy was determined to be the third country based on patent activity.

Once all these complications were cleared, we formally ratified the system in February 2023, and the court system officially started in June 2023.

Rolf Claessen: The idea is really old and the process has been quite long and tedious in some phases. Why, in your personal opinion, did it take so long to establish the Unified Patent Court?

J. Christian Wichard: I think the key advantages of the Unified Patent Court system are, first, the territorial scope. That’s a big achievement. You have only one procedure for handling a patent dispute, and the resulting judgment is valid and enforceable in all 18 participating member states.

Also, you have a procedure that will contribute to the development of a unified European patent case law. That, in turn, will lead to more legal certainty throughout what you might call a single European patent litigation space.

Second, there is procedural efficiency. A single action before the UPC in most cases will be more cost-effective than multiple national actions. Even if you look at the current fees, a UPC procedure can often be cheaper than a German court procedure — if you consider the need to go through both infringement and validity procedures in several national courts, possibly including appeal instances.

The UPC Rules of Procedure are designed to expedite proceedings. Typically, the first instance decision is issued within 12 months after commencement. They are still managing to stick to that timeline for now.

Then you have a limited language regime. Typically, the language of the proceedings is the language of the patent. But importantly, English can be used before all local chambers, and that has been authorized. This makes it easier to access for international companies.

The third major advantage is expertise. The court consists of the most experienced patent judges from the participating member states. They were selected not by the member states, but by an independent expert panel, which makes the selection process less susceptible to political pressure. That is a real benefit and contributes to the UPC being recognized as a high-quality patent court — at least equivalent to the respected German system.

And of course, legal and technical judges sit together on the bench in many cases. Technical judges are not just expert advisors; they participate fully in the decision-making process. That really adds value when dealing with technically complex matters.

Rolf Claessen: And more countries are joining. So it’s really a growing system. I think Ireland might be joining sometime soon, and other countries have expressed interest. So yes, it’s growing. And the usage is increasing a lot — we see that in the monthly figures published by the UPC, which are all going up. So the acceptance is clearly rising.

J. Christian Wichard: Yes.

Rolf Claessen: Let’s switch topics a bit and talk about the EU’s IP harmonization package. The European Union wants to reform and harmonize intellectual property. What is the goal of this package, and what are the most important components in your view?

J. Christian Wichard: What we currently have is what’s referred to as the patent package. It includes three dossiers, each of which is quite substantial.

First, there is a proposed regulation aimed at establishing an EU-wide compulsory licensing system. That is a politically hot topic.

Second, there are dossiers relating to Supplementary Protection Certificates (SPCs). This includes a regulation to harmonize the granting of national SPCs through a single European procedure — that’s two regulations — and another regulation to establish a unitary SPC as the long-awaited complement to the unitary patent.

The third element is a regulation on standard-essential patents (SEPs) aimed at increasing transparency and facilitating the licensing process. This is also a very complex and hotly debated issue.

Rolf Claessen: The EU Commission has announced its intention to withdraw the SEP component of the package. What is the current status, particularly with regard to SPCs and compulsory licenses in your opinion?

J. Christian Wichard: The SEP dossier has not yet been officially withdrawn, but the Commission has indeed announced its intention to do so. It has given the Council and the European Parliament an opportunity to comment.

The European Parliament was very clear in its response — it is clearly against a withdrawal. The Parliament made this position very clear to the Commission. Unfortunately, the Council is split. We didn’t really have the possibility to discuss the substance of the SEP proposal thoroughly because we were so busy dealing with compulsory licensing and SPCs. The Presidencies so far have not scheduled in-depth discussions of the SEP dossier.

But in the end, 10 countries — including Germany, France, and Italy — opposed the withdrawal very clearly. About the same number supported the withdrawal, including Sweden, Finland, and the Netherlands. So in a way, the Council was divided.

From the point of view of the German government, a withdrawal would be unfortunate. While we were not happy with every single element of the SEP proposal, we still think it is better than having no instrument at all. It provides a good basis for substantive discussion in the Council with the aim of reaching a qualified majority necessary to adopt legislation. The alternative would be nothing — and we think that would not be a good outcome. At least from the German government’s perspective, there is a clear need to enhance transparency and to provide guidance for licensing negotiations. That is obviously quite difficult at the moment, as we see from the divergent court decisions emerging in the EU.

Regarding the compulsory licensing proposal: an agreement was reached between the Commission, the Council, and the European Parliament in the so-called trilogue negotiations in May 2025. Currently, we are in the legal scrubbing phase, which means that the legal services are reviewing the text for consistency and correctness. The formal adoption will take place at one of the next Council meetings — we don’t know exactly when, but it will happen.

So compulsory licensing — which, incidentally, was the proposal we cared the least about — will be the first to be finalized.

The SPC discussions are significantly more complicated — at least for three reasons.

First, the Council Legal Service — unprompted — questioned the legal basis used by the Commission for the proposal. The legal basis is Article 118 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU. The argument is that a unitary SPC would only be valid in the 18 member states currently participating in the unitary patent system, and that therefore it doesn’t qualify as a title valid “throughout the EU,” which is what Article 118 requires.

We don’t agree with that assessment, and neither does the Commission’s Legal Service. Still, this point has become a stumbling block.

Second, there is the question of judicial competence. Not all member states agree on whether the Unified Patent Court should be responsible for invalidity actions — both direct and indirect. If the EUIPO were to grant the title, then, according to the Commission Legal Service, direct invalidity actions might fall under the jurisdiction of the ECJ. That’s not ideal. So some member states suggested involving the EPO instead.

However, involving a non-EU body like the EPO as the granting authority poses another problem — you have to stretch EU law considerably to allow for that. It may not even be possible legally.

So we are facing a complicated mix of legal and political issues — regarding the legal basis, the competence of the UPC, and the choice of granting institution.

Fortunately, the Danish Presidency is very ambitious. They have declared that they want to bring the SPC negotiations to a conclusion by the end of their term — at least by reaching a qualified majority in Council.

Rolf Claessen: So interesting to hear the status from you because you are an insider — you are in discussion with your colleagues from other countries, trying to reach agreement and achieve the best outcomes for users of the system. I’m very grateful that you are participating there.

Since you are here in the podcast, I also wanted to ask you something else — a topic that has been in the news and is also hotly debated among IP professionals. What are the current discussions about copyright versus artificial intelligence on a government level?

Can artificial intelligence be a creator? And can copyrighted material be used to train artificial intelligence without the consent of the creator? There are already some early court decisions on this around the world. What is your view — and what is the current status?

J. Christian Wichard: This is definitely an extremely hot topic and one that raises deep concern among stakeholders in the creative industries.

On the one hand, generative AI is a helpful tool. It can increase efficiency and assist in creative work. But on the other hand, there’s a fear that it might replace human-created content. And we are already seeing that. Machine translations are becoming common. Background music can be generated by AI. Even press articles and news items can now be produced by algorithms.

So the fundamental question is: How can copyright still support human creators in making a living from their work?

That is why this discussion is both difficult and politically charged. At the Ministry — where we are also responsible for copyright — we are very active in this area. Not always in the media, but we’ve been working behind the scenes. For example, we organized an international conference early last year. That was one of the first in a long series of events on this topic. We’ve also actively contributed to the debate in the Council of the EU.

Perhaps most importantly, we are in touch with the European Commission to prepare a broader policy discussion at EU level. We believe that this debate should not be limited to the text and data mining (TDM) exception that already exists in the Digital Single Market Directive.

There will be an evaluation of that exception next year, but we think we shouldn’t wait. The debate is broader, and it should start now — with a view to finding practical solutions.

To your questions: Can copyrighted material be used to train AI without the consent of the creator? The answer is: To a certain extent, yes.

It depends on whether the training qualifies as commercial text and data mining. If it does, then the copyright owner has the right to opt out of the exception. They can simply say “no,” and then their works must not be used for training purposes.

This opt-out right was introduced to encourage the development of a licensing market. If you can say no, then you can also ask for a fee in exchange for a license.

The problem, however, is transparency. You don’t really know whether your work has been used, because text and data mining happens invisibly. There’s no trace in your work showing whether it was part of an AI training dataset.

The EU AI Act has introduced some transparency obligations. For example, AI providers must publish a summary of the works used for training. This summary must be meaningful — meaning it should be sufficient to form the basis of a claim in court, for example.

Currently, several working groups are preparing a code of practice and a standard template for such summaries. These processes are led by the European Commission.

As for your second question — can AI be a “creator”? I would say: not in itself. A work generated entirely by AI is not a copyright-protected work in our current legal system.

But a work created with the help of AI — where a human uses the AI tool in a creative way — can still qualify for copyright protection. It depends on the degree of human input.

And can AI-generated output infringe copyright? Possibly — if the output is more or less identical to a copyrighted work. Even if the algorithm says it was a coincidence, if the result is substantially the same as an existing work, it might still be considered infringement.

Should AI-generated works themselves be protected by copyright or related rights? Our position is: not at this point. We don’t see a need to incentivize investment in AI-generated content by granting copyright.

The bigger question, however, is: How do we ensure fair remuneration for human creators in the digital and AI age?

Rolf Claessen: I think there has been an official opinion by the government regarding the remuneration of creators — for streaming or private copies. Can you summarize the main findings and suggestions from this official opinion?

J. Christian Wichard: It hasn’t been published yet — but it will be published in the coming weeks.

We’ve received the report recently, and we are currently preparing it for publication. This expert opinion, which we commissioned, deals with two central questions.

The first part concerns the remuneration of creators in the platform economy — particularly in relation to streaming. That covers all sectors except music, because a separate study on music was already commissioned by the Federal Commissioner for Culture and Media.

The second part of the opinion deals with the remuneration system for private copying — which is authorized under German law. We have a fairly elaborate system in place, which dates back to the late 1960s and early 1970s, and has been reformed several times.

The question was: Does this system still work as intended?

I won’t go into the details of the results yet — but the good news is that there’s no need for a fundamental overhaul. The core elements of the system can remain in place.

That said, the opinion does include some suggestions to improve transparency — for example, who receives how much, how value is calculated, and what constitutes adequate remuneration. It also includes proposals for increasing efficiency within the system.

Rolf Claessen: Do you have an idea when the report will be publicly available?

J. Christian Wichard: We’ve just requested authorization for publication. Normally, our political leadership is rather quick with granting that authorization.

So it could happen within the next two weeks — just in time for the summer, maybe as reading material by the pool.

Rolf Claessen: And we’re recording this in mid-July — so by the time this podcast is published, the report might already be available. If so, I will include a link in the description below this episode.

J. Christian Wichard: I’ll send you a note once it’s published.

Rolf Claessen: That would be great. It has been really great to have you as a guest in this interview, and I’m very grateful that you took the time. It’s not often that I have the chance to meet someone who has helped shape the IP landscape in Germany and Europe as much as you have. So, thank you very much.

J. Christian Wichard: Just to say: I’m not doing this alone, of course. We have very qualified colleagues here in the Ministry who are in charge of copyright, patent law, trademark law, and fair competition. I’m not the only one working on these issues.

Rolf Claessen: Of course. But you oversee the efforts — and your insight has been very valuable.

Thank you so much again.

J. Christian Wichard: Thank you for having me. It was a pleasure.