Medical_Devices — European UPC Patent Cases
225 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 8 · 225 total
A. Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures related to a CGM patent. The court confirmed its jurisdiction based on the likelihood of damage arising from products intended for UPC Member States. Ultimately, the appeal was rejected, and the Appellants were ordered to pay €200,000 in interim costs to the Respondent. This case reinforces the broad jurisdictional reach of the UPC when infringing goods are marketed within the territory.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
This UPC appellate decision addressed procedural matters in a dispute over neuromodulation systems. While the core infringement appeal was dismissed, the court issued an order regarding provisional costs. The ruling reinforces principles on how non-registered claims can be asserted and clarifies the standards for determining indirect patent use (Verwendungsbestimmung) based on objective evidence. This case is significant for practitioners dealing with procedural hurdles in complex medical device IP litigation.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In a case involving F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf allowed the claimants to withdraw their infringement action concerning EP 1 962 668. This withdrawal was based on an out-of-court settlement reached between the parties, which stipulated that each party would bear its own costs. The court confirmed the termination of proceedings and ordered a partial reimbursement of court fees for Roche.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
This procedural order addressed a request for reimbursement of court fees following the withdrawal of an infringement action in the UPC. The Court confirmed that because the case was terminated before the conclusion of the written procedure, the Claimant was entitled to 60% of their paid court fees under Rule 370.9 RoP. This decision highlights the practical application of cost recovery rules when litigation is voluntarily withdrawn.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of business information disclosed during infringement proceedings. EOFlow sought to classify internal data, such as turnover numbers and pricing, as confidential under R. 262.2 RoP. The court ruled against EOFlow, emphasizing that mere disclosure in litigation does not automatically grant trade secret protection if specific protective measures are absent. This reinforces the strict requirements for maintaining confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
A. Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. v.F. Hoffmann- La Roche AG
This UPC appeal case involved an application for interim measures concerning patent EP 1 962 668, filed by Menarini Diagnostics against Roche. After the initial proceedings at the Local Division of Düsseldorf, the parties reached an out-of-court settlement. Consequently, the claimants withdrew their request for provisional relief. The UPC Board of Appeal accepted this withdrawal and terminated the case, highlighting the importance of amicable resolution in complex patent litigation.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed a request by Hologic, Inc. to submit further written arguments in an ongoing UPC case against Siemens Healthineers AG. The Court ultimately rejected this request, citing concerns over unnecessary delay and insufficient justification provided by the Claimant. This decision reinforces the court's strict management of proceedings under the Rules of Procedure (RoP), balancing the right to be heard against procedural efficiency.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal concerning provisional measures in a dispute over hair care appliances. The court upheld the injunction against Dreame's products but clarified key legal principles regarding claim construction and the scope of injunctive relief. Specifically, it ruled that infringement risk extends beyond previously committed acts, strengthening the basis for broad interim protection.
KeyMed (Medical & Industrial Equipment) Limited v.PR Medical s.r.l.
This Milan Local Division decision addressed a preliminary objection concerning the language of proceedings in an infringement case. The defendant argued that since they were based in Italy, the trial must proceed in Italian under Rule 14.2(b) RoP. However, the Court rejected this argument, finding that because the claimant alleged infringing activities across various contracting states (including Germany and via global website presence), the exception to the language rule did not apply. The decision affirms the principle that jurisdiction can be established where infringement occurs or may occur, allowing for flexibility in procedural choices.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V. Et al
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. brought an infringement action against Philips and its subsidiaries regarding a position therapy device covered by EP 2 437 696 B2. However, the Defendants successfully mounted a counterclaim for revocation. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately ruled that the patent was invalid and revoked it entirely. This decision highlights the significant risk associated with maintaining patents in the UPC without robust validity defenses.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal order addresses a procedural request by Sibio Technology Limited seeking further written pleadings during an appeal against a revocation judgment. The court rejected the request, emphasizing that appeals must be based on the record established at the Court of First Instance. The ruling clarifies the scope of appellate proceedings under the UPC Rules of Procedure, ensuring efficiency while maintaining due process.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural challenge by EOFlow against penalty payments and costs imposed by the Court of First Instance following an infringement finding related to insulin pump technology. EOFlow sought discretionary review, arguing that procedural deadlines were not strictly applicable in their case. The CoA ultimately dismissed this request, emphasizing strict adherence to the Rules of Procedure (R. 220.3 RoP). This ruling serves as a strong reminder for patent practitioners about the critical importance of timely procedural filings within the UPC framework.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v.BrainPortfolio Inc.
Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA initiated proceedings against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. concerning the validity or infringement of EP 3 001 984 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order setting the date for oral hearings on April 22, 2026. This decision highlights the court's focus on ensuring technical expertise by requesting an additional qualified judge in the medical technology field (A61F/A61B).
bioMérieux UK Limited, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda., bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural applications concerning a patent dispute involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics. The Appellants sought to stay the proceedings based on pending EPO opposition actions and requested an extension of their appeal deadline to align with potential infringement appeals. The court firmly rejected both requests, reiterating the principle that extensions must be exceptional and noting that existing UPC rules provide efficient mechanisms for aligning parallel proceedings.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc., Angelalign France Technology SASU, Europe Angelalign Technology B.V., Angelalign Technology (Germany) GmbH, Italy Angelalign Technology S.R.L., Shanghai EA Medical Instruments Co., Ltd.
Align Technology sought provisional measures against the Angelalign group regarding alleged infringement of its clear aligner orthodontic patent (EP 4 346 690 B1). The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a complex order, granting a preliminary injunction and imposing significant penalty payments on several defendants. While the court established the validity concerns were not automatically overcome by the applicant's claims, it found grounds for provisional relief against specific infringing parties. This decision highlights the delicate balance courts must strike when balancing patent holder rights with defendant challenges during urgent interim proceedings in the UPC.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for confidentiality concerning information exchanged during infringement litigation. The court ruled that once a party provides information without restriction under a court order, the recipient loses the basis to restrict its use. This clarifies the scope of confidentiality protections in the UPC, emphasizing that specific requests (R. 262A RoP) are needed when disclosure is mandated by the court.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA
Labrador Diagnostics LLC brought an infringement action against bioMérieux SA concerning the diagnostic instrument and method covered by EP 3 756 767 B1. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately dismissed the infringement claim. This decision highlights the procedural implications of bifurcated UPC cases, confirming that a finding of non-infringement renders the validity question moot for the immediate action. It also sets clear parameters regarding cost allocation in unsuccessful litigation.
BTL Medizintechnik GmbH v.Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.
In a procedural case concerning an infringement action, the UPC granted the withdrawal request initiated by BTL Medizintechnik GmbH against Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.. The court confirmed that since both parties had reached a settlement, the proceedings could be formally closed without further judicial intervention on merits or costs.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
In this procedural order, the UPC Court of First Instance addressed a defendant's attempt to introduce late-filed auxiliary amendments (requests 2A to 13A) into an ongoing revocation action. The claimant argued these requests violated Rule 30.2 RoP by being introduced without proper procedure. The Court ultimately rejected the request, emphasizing that while proportionality is considered, the preclusive nature of the rules against 'little steps' amendments must be respected.
ESTABLISHMENT LABS S.A. v.GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED et al.
In this preliminary objection case, Establishment Labs S.A. sued GC Aesthetics Group and its affiliates for infringing EP 3 107 487 B1 related to the Perle implant across multiple jurisdictions, including non-UPC states like Ireland and the UK. The Defendants challenged the UPC's jurisdiction over these national designations. The Local Division of Brussels dismissed the objection, affirming that the UPC possesses international jurisdiction over all parts of a European patent when one defendant is properly sued. This ruling clears the path for the merits phase to determine infringement across all claimed territories.
Fisher & Paykel Healthcare Limited v.Flexicare (Group) Limited
This procedural order addressed a request by the defendant to introduce subsequent, limiting auxiliary claims into a revocation action concerning a medical device patent (EP4185356). The Court emphasized its commitment to maintaining the integrity and efficiency of UPC proceedings. Despite arguing that the new amendments were merely responsive to the claimant's objections, the Court rejected them, reinforcing the strict procedural requirements for amending patents during litigation.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
In this UPC case, Emboline, Inc. sued AorticLab srl for infringing a patent covering an embolic protection device. The court dismissed the infringement action, finding that the defendant's product did not meet all the requirements of the patented claims. Beyond the merits, the decision provided important procedural guidance on how dependent counterclaims are limited and how costs are allocated when certain intra-procedural conditions are not met.
Angelalign Technology Inc. v.Align Technology, Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request for discretionary review concerning procedural matters in provisional measures proceedings. Angelalign sought to overturn an earlier order from the Court of First Instance that disregarded its non-infringement arguments. The court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing strict requirements for challenging lower court decisions. Practitioners should note that simply stating that evidence was excluded is insufficient; applicants must clearly articulate why the exclusion constitutes a manifest error.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a.o.
This procedural order in the UPC case Align Technology v. Angelalign Technology concerns a request for leave to appeal an earlier decision that restricted the Defendants' ability to submit late-filed non-infringement arguments and further written pleadings during provisional measures proceedings. The Court of First Instance ultimately denied this request, asserting its discretion under the Rules of Procedure (RoP) in managing the case efficiently. This ruling underscores the court's authority to strictly manage procedural timelines, even when those orders significantly impact the substantive defense.
NJOY Netherlands B.V. v.VMR Products LLC
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an appeal against a revocation action concerning EP 3 456 214, a patent covering vaporizer technology. The court confirmed the initial finding that several claims lacked inventive step due to anticipation by prior art (Pan). Furthermore, the judgment provided important procedural guidance on how parties must manage new evidence and arguments when responding to applications to amend under the UPC's strict front-loaded system. This case is significant for practitioners navigating complex revocation proceedings in the unified patent court.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
This Düsseldorf Local Division order addresses procedural issues arising from an application to preserve evidence in a medical device patent case. The court emphasized that defendants must actively utilize provided CMS access codes and appoint representatives promptly if they wish to comment on confidentiality interests related to expert reports. Since the respondent failed to log into the CMS, the court proceeded with disclosing the unredacted expert description to the applicant while simultaneously revoking the evidence preservation measures unless the main infringement proceedings were quickly initiated.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses procedural issues concerning the preservation and inspection of evidence in a medical technology dispute. The court ruled that if a defendant fails to utilize the provided CMS access code to comment on confidentiality interests after receiving an expert's detailed description, the applicant's right to proceed with disclosure is upheld. This ruling emphasizes the importance of timely digital engagement by parties involved in UPC proceedings.
Unnamed Applicant v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
This UPC CFI decision addressed a request for access to the case file of an ongoing provisional measures action (UPC_CFI_830/2025). An unnamed applicant, claiming to represent a competitor in the CGM field, sought access to conduct an FTO analysis. The Court ultimately denied this request, emphasizing that vague claims of 'specific interest' are insufficient and that procedural integrity must be maintained, especially in fast-tracked proceedings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l.
In this UPC case, Roche sought provisional measures against Menarini regarding the infringement of its sandwich sensor patent (EP 1 962 668 B1), which covers implantable sensors for continuous glucose monitoring. While the main application for an injunction was dismissed, the court issued important legal guidelines concerning claim scope and territorial reach of manufacturing injunctions. The decision reinforces principles on how process claims interact with product claims and confirms that anti-infringement measures can apply even when production occurs outside the UPC contracting states.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
In a procedural ruling concerning EP 3 769 722, the UPC Court of First Instance granted both parties' requests to stay the proceedings. This decision is highly significant as it links the outcome of the UPC litigation directly to the parallel opposition proceedings before the EPO Boards of Appeal. Furthermore, the court provisionally established strict confidentiality measures for sensitive documents exchanged between the parties, setting a clear precedent for managing trade secrets within the UPC framework.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.