Medical_Devices — European UPC Patent Cases
11 decisions indexed
Page 1 of 1 · 11 total
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal concerning an application for suspensive effect of an appeal against a decision of the Local Division Düsseldorf. The Local Division had found that EP 2 352 431 (relating to a breast tomosynthesis system) was infringed and dismissed the counterclaim for revocation. The appellants (Siemens entities) sought suspensive effect, arguing the impugned decision was manifestly erroneous and violated their right to be heard. The Court of Appeal rejected the application, finding no manifest error and no violation of the right to be heard.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
This order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court addresses the procedural treatment of conditional counterclaims for revocation. The Court of Appeal clarified that making a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement is permissible, and provided guidance on how the counterclaimant should proceed if the infringement claimant appeals a finding of non-infringement by the Court of First Instance.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG, Siemens Healthcare GmbH, Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V., Siemens Healthcare SAS
The appellants (Siemens entities) sought to withdraw their application for suspensive effect in appeal proceedings (UPC-CoA-94/2026) relating to a counterclaim for revocation, arguing the application had been filed accidentally. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal under R. 265 RoP and granted the appellants' auxiliary request for reimbursement of 50% of the court fees (EUR 1,300), rejecting their main request for full reimbursement.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This appeal concerned an application for provisional measures in a patent infringement dispute over European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to occlusion devices for closing septal defects. The Düsseldorf Local Division had rejected Occlutech's application, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that Lepu's MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders comprised a braiding of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, holding that the Attacked Embodiments do infringe claim 1 of the Patent, and granted the provisional measures ordering Lepu to cease offering, marketing, using, importing, or possessing the infringing products in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.
This is an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 1 998 686, which relates to an occlusion instrument. Occlutech, the patent holder, sought preliminary measures against Lepu for allegedly infringing the patent with its MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD products. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf had rejected the preliminary measures, finding it could not be established with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiments comprised a mesh of more than one wire. The Court of Appeal set aside that decision, granted the preliminary measures, and ordered Lepu to cease the infringing activities in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, subject to a penalty of up to €250,000 per day of non-compliance.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This case concerns a procedural dispute in damages proceedings before the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court. Following a final 2025 decision finding that the Meril entities infringed Edwards Lifesciences' European patent EP 3 669 828, Edwards sought a deadline extension for filing its reply to Meril's defence because its UPC representative was not notified when the sub-registry changed the confidentiality status of documents. The court granted a limited two-day extension, finding Edwards' representative should have inquired with the sub-registry by 17 June 2026, but acknowledged that the CMS's lack of automatic notifications needed to be addressed.
LABS v.GC AESTHETICS PARENTCO LIMITED, NAGOR LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS MANAGEMENT LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (DISTRIBUTION) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS (France) SAS, EUROSILICONE SAS, GC AESTHETICS ITALY S.R.L., GC AESTHETICS GmbH, GC AESTHETICS SPAIN, S.L.U., GLOBAL CONSOLIDATED AESTHETICS (UK) LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS HOLDINGS LIMITED, GC AESTHETICS FINANCE LIMITED, ROMED N.V.
This order concerns an application under R.190 RoP filed by the GC Aesthetics group of companies in parallel UPC infringement proceedings (UPC_CFI_1357/2025) and counterclaim for revocation proceedings (UPC_CFI_629/2025) against LABS regarding EP 3 107 487 B1, which relates to Motiva breast implants including the Motiva SilkSurface. The Court ordered LABS to produce extensive evidence including sales figures, physical samples, promotional materials, third-party test reports, technical specifications, regulatory documentation, and Design History Files, aligning the requests and timeframes with parallel UK disclosure proceedings. The Court imposed a recurring penalty of €2,000 per day of delay to ensure compliance.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda v.Polytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
SILIMED sought review of the Registrar's decision rejecting its application to remove an opt-out filed by Polytech for European patent EP 2 581 193. The Court of Appeal held that the application for review was unfounded because SILIMED failed to demonstrate that Polytech was not entitled to be registered as proprietor of the patent at the time the opt-out was filed on 30 March 2023. The court found that the subsequent German court decision ordering transfer of the patent to SILIMED, which became final only on 5 January 2026, had no retroactive effect.
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.
The Local Division Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request for penalty payments under Art. 82 UPCA and R. 354.4 RoP following a preliminary injunction of 12 February 2026 that had been imposed on five of the six Defendants for infringing EP 4 346 690 B1 through their 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2) with its 'Live Now' feature. The Court found that the Defendants' User Manual available on their website constituted an 'offering' within the meaning of Art. 25 UPCA for a duration of 33 days, but that the Instagram and Facebook posts did not constitute such an offering. A penalty payment of EUR 49,500 was imposed, costs were split 50/50, and leave to appeal was granted.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. et al.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court upheld the Local Division Düsseldorf's order granting provisional measures in favor of Align Technology, Inc. against the Angelalign Technology group. The court found that the 'Live Now' feature of the appellants' iOrtho orthodontic planning software infringed claims 1, 13, and 15 of Align's EP 4 346 690 patent, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The appeal was rejected and the appellants were ordered to bear the costs of the appeal proceedings.
Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v.Speed Care Mineral GmbH
This case concerns a cost decision following the dismissal of an infringement action and partial revocation of European Patent EP 2 077 811 B1. The Local Division Hamburg had previously revoked the patent to the extent of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, ordering the Claimant (Teleflex) to bear the costs. The Defendant (Speed Care Mineral) applied for reimbursement of its legal costs and court fees, and the Court ordered the Claimant to reimburse a total of €211,000.00, comprising €200,000.00 in legal fees (the applicable ceiling for recoverable costs) and €11,000.00 in court fees.
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.