Medical_Devices — European UPC Patent Cases
225 decisions indexed
Page 2 of 8 · 225 total
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC addresses procedural matters in a patent infringement case involving Aesculap AG and several Shanghai Bojin entities concerning EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, while also proposing to expand the scope of the dispute to include an additional product, the 'Bojin Rosenfräser.' This move is intended to ensure procedural efficiency and prevent future litigation.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
Insulet Corporation successfully sought enforcement measures against EOFLOW Co., Ltd. regarding violations of prior injunctions concerning the supply of infringing fluid delivery devices. The UPC Court of First Instance ruled that EOFLOW was in breach of its obligations, leading to a significant penalty payment being imposed. This decision underscores the strict nature of compliance with interim and final injunctive relief within the Unified Patent Court system.
Pari Pharma GmbH v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.
In this UPC revocation action concerning a nebulizer head patent, the Court found that the original claim lacked novelty. However, the case demonstrated the critical importance of amendment strategies in UPC litigation. By successfully amending the claims to overcome prior art objections, the defendant managed to save the patent, illustrating how strategic adjustments can preserve IP rights even when facing significant validity challenges.
LiNA Medical AG v.Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures at the UPC Düsseldorf Local Division to preserve evidence by inspecting a 'disposable morcellator' exhibited by Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. during the MEDICA trade fair, citing suspected infringement of EP 2 593 025 B1. The Applicant argued that detailed analysis was necessary to confirm component identity and potential infringement. However, the Court ultimately rejected the application for preservation of evidence.
LiNA Medical AG v.Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG sought provisional measures, specifically an inspection of a competitor's product (MORCELLIX) exhibited at MEDICA, to assess potential infringement of its laparoscopic morcellator patent. The UPC Local Division granted the request for evidence preservation and inspection but rejected the broader application for provisional measures. This decision highlights the court's willingness to facilitate early technical investigations necessary for complex medical device cases.
Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v.Occlutech GmbH
In a critical decision regarding provisional measures, the UPC Court of Appeal rejected Lepu Medical's application for suspensive effect against an injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division. The court emphasized that exceptions to the rule requiring manifest error are narrowly applied. This ruling reinforces the principle that patentees can secure immediate protection against infringement unless the appellant meets a high burden of proof.
Align Technology, Inc. v.Angelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
In a procedural order concerning provisional measures, the UPC Local Division dismissed the Defendants' demand that Align Technology provide security for legal costs. The Defendants had argued that due to the Applicant being based in the United States, enforcement of any potential costs award would incur substantial and potentially non-reimbursable expenses. However, the Court found that the Defendants failed to meet their burden of proof, specifically by not providing evidence on the foreign law applicable for enforcement in the US. This decision reinforces the high evidentiary standard required when seeking security for costs within the UPC.
Brita SE v.Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o.
Brita SE successfully obtained an interim injunction from the UPC Local Chamber against Fileder Filter Systems Spółka z o.o. regarding the alleged infringement of EP 2 131 940 B1. The patent covers a specific water treatment device featuring a cartridge with a rotatable locking shaft for securing the connection head. The court ordered an immediate cessation of offering and placing on the market of the infringing cartridges across multiple EU member states. This decision highlights the UPC's efficiency in granting urgent provisional measures to protect IP rights.
Occultech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
Occultech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for alleged infringement of its medical device patent (EP 1 998 686 B2), specifically concerning the MemoCarna occluders. The Düsseldorf Local Chamber ultimately rejected the application, finding that the necessary prerequisites for an injunction were not satisfied. This decision underscores the high threshold required to obtain provisional measures in UPC proceedings.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In a significant decision concerning point-of-care diagnostics, the UPC Central Division rejected the revocation action brought by bioMérieux against EP 3 756 767 B1. The Court found that the patent remained valid when amended by Auxiliary Request 3 (AR 3). This ruling reinforces the importance of auxiliary requests in preserving patent rights and sets a precedent regarding the proportionality of validity challenges before the UPC.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
In a provisional measures case concerning CGM technology, Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought relief against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the patent EP3988471. While the Court ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, it issued a significant ruling on costs. The Court found that despite the dismissal, Abbott must pay an interim award of EUR 400,000 to the Defendants to cover their legal expenses. This decision highlights the UPC's strict approach to cost allocation in preliminary proceedings, emphasizing the principle of proper and fair administration of justice even when the main application fails.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for the imminent infringement of its patent covering braided occlusion devices. The court's final order emphasized that CE-mark approval is a mandatory prerequisite for legal market entry in the EU. This ruling highlights the critical role of regulatory compliance (specifically MDR) when assessing potential infringement and market readiness within UPC proceedings.
Meril Life Sciences Private Ltd. v.Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
In a significant decision involving prosthetic heart valves, the UPC Central Division addressed both a revocation action and a counterclaim for infringement. The court ultimately found that several claims of EP 4 151 181 B1 were infringed by Meril's products (Octacor/Octapro System). Furthermore, the ruling established strict compliance measures, including substantial penalty payments for non-adherence to the injunction orders. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where validity challenges run parallel to infringement enforcement.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.Sinocare Inc.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. sought provisional measures against Sinocare and Menarini regarding the alleged infringement of its CGM sensor assembly patent (EP4344633). The UPC Local Division granted a significant injunction, ordering the defendants to cease certain activities and provide detailed information on their product's origin and distribution channels within the UPC territory. While the Court did not rule definitively on the merits of infringement, this order provides Abbott with immediate leverage by restricting market access for the accused products.
ONWARD Medical N.V. v.Niche Biomedical, Inc.
ONWARD Medical N.V. sought an injunction against Niche Biomedical, Inc., alleging infringement of its patent EP 3 421 081 B1 concerning neuromodulation systems. The Munich Local Division ultimately denied the request for provisional measures. The court emphasized that in such proceedings, attempts to modify claims to address validity doubts are typically rejected, highlighting a strict standard for injunctive relief. This decision underscores the high bar required for patentees seeking urgent interim protection under the UPC.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH a.o.
In this cost decision case, the UPC Local Division Munich ruled in favor of Edwards Lifesciences Corporation against Meril GmbH and its affiliates. The court awarded a substantial sum of EUR 771,649.56 to cover Edwards' legal costs incurred during the proceedings related to EP patent 3669828. The ruling emphasized that given the overall complexity of the case, the judge-rapporteur has broad discretion and may award costs even if specific disputed elements (like travel details) are marginal.
Herbert Smith Freehills Kramer LLP v.Insulet Corporation; EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addressed a request for file inspection by legal counsel (HSF Kramer LLP). The Court analyzed the need for HSF to access redacted documents from related proceedings, balancing transparency against party interests. While denying broad access to exhibits due to concerns over scoping and proportionality, the Judge Rapporteur granted limited access to key pleadings, affirming that the reasoned decision itself provides sufficient insight into the case.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated infringement proceedings against Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. and Nurotron Global SARL regarding EP 4 074 373. The parties subsequently reached a settlement agreement to resolve the dispute. The Hamburg Local Division confirmed this settlement, allowing it to be treated as a final, enforceable decision while ensuring that the confidential details of the agreement remained protected in the public register.
Labrador Diagnostics LLC v.bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Portugal, and bioMérieux Benelux BV
Labrador Diagnostics LLC has initiated a patent infringement action against multiple bioMérieux entities before the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf concerning EP 3 756 767 B1. This procedural order sets the stage for the litigation, scheduling an oral hearing for November 27, 2025. The parties are now required to prepare their arguments and attend the hearing, which will be audio recorded.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Sintec S.R.L.
This UPC decision confirms a settlement reached between Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and Sintec S.R.L./Value Med S.R.L., concluding an earlier application for provisional measures concerning EP 3 646 825 B1. While the settlement itself was confirmed, the Court rejected Edwards' request to reimburse court fees based on a misapplication of procedural rules. This case highlights the finality and binding nature of settlements within the UPC framework.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited
This UPC decision addressed a request for rectification concerning the allocation of legal costs following a complex merits judgment. The Claimant, Edwards Lifesciences, had achieved partial success—upholding the patent as amended while finding infringement and invalidity. The Defendants argued that the original cost order was incomplete, failing to allocate 25% of their own costs. The Court firmly rejected this argument, confirming that the initial decision provided a fair and equitable distribution of costs under Article 69 UPCA.
Cilag GmbH International v.RiVOLUTiON GmbH
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC sought provisional measures against German distributor RiVOLUTiON GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of their staple cartridge patent EP3689262. The UPC Court of First Instance ultimately dismissed the application for provisional measures, meaning no immediate injunction was granted. However, the court concurrently confirmed a preliminary confidentiality order and established a confidentiality club, setting procedural groundwork for future litigation.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG; Siemens Healthcare GmbH; Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.; Siemens Healthcare SAS
In a procedural order concerning the infringement and revocation of EP 2 352 431 B1, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed issues of trade secret protection. The court granted the request to classify certain information regarding the design and functioning of the attacked embodiments as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA. This decision reinforces the mechanism for protecting sensitive commercial data during complex UPC litigation involving major medical device manufacturers.
MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a critical procedural issue regarding service of process in linked proceedings. The Claimant sought to serve the main infringement action on the Defendant's representative who had handled provisional measures, arguing that the link between the cases mandated this. However, the Court ruled that representation is not automatically transferable across different types of proceedings, even if they are related by Rule 213.1 RoP. Consequently, service must be conducted through formal international channels (Hague Convention) due to the Defendant's foreign seat.
Occlutech GmbH v.Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A.
This decision from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns an application for provisional measures related to EP 1 998 686 B1. Although the core issue is infringement, the respondents raised challenges regarding the patent's validity. The court ruled that given these dual issues—infringement and invalidity—it was appropriate to enhance the judicial panel by appointing an additional technically qualified judge. This proactive step ensures early expert involvement in complex medical technology cases.
RiVOLUTiON GmbH v.Cilag GmbH International
This UPC appeal case concerned RiVOLUTiON GmbH's attempt to suspend an injunction issued by the Local Court Munich against it. Rivolution argued that the original decision contained evident legal errors regarding procedural fairness, damages, and enforcement security. The Appeals Chamber ruled that most of these alleged errors could not be assessed without reviewing the detailed grounds of the initial judgment. Consequently, the request for suspension was denied, meaning the injunction remains in effect until further appeal.
Dyson Technology Limited v.DREAME INTERNATIONAL (HONGKONG) LIMITED, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited successfully obtained provisional measures against the Dreame group and its affiliates in a UPC case concerning hair styling appliances. The ruling is highly significant as it leverages EU product safety regulations to establish international jurisdiction over non-EU manufacturers, using their Authorized Representative (AR) as an 'anchor defendant.' This decision strengthens the enforcement power of the UPC by making ARs liable for injunctions.
Dyson Technology Limited v.Dreame International (Hongkong) Limited, Teqphone GmbH, Eurep GmbH, Dreame Technology AB
Dyson Technology Limited successfully sought provisional measures against the Dreame group and its affiliates in a UPC action concerning hair styling appliances. The ruling was significant for establishing jurisdiction over international companies operating through EU Authorized Representatives, confirming that these representatives can act as 'anchor defendants' under Brussels I rules. This decision provides clarity on how IP rights holders can enforce their patents against global supply chains anchored by local intermediaries. The case underscores the practical application of cross-border legal principles within the UPC framework, particularly regarding product safety regulations and distribution networks.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addressed a security for costs dispute in an ongoing UPC case. The Court rejected the Claimant's proposal to use litigation insurance as adequate security. Instead, it mandated that Syntorr LP provide €2 million in security by September 30, 2025. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of Rule 158(1) RoP regarding acceptable forms of financial guarantees in UPC proceedings.
Syntorr LP v.Arthrex Inc.
This procedural order from the Local Division Munich addresses a security for costs dispute in an ongoing UPC case involving Syntorr LP and Arthrex. The Court rejected the Claimant's proposal to use litigation insurance as adequate security. Instead, it mandated that the Claimant provide €2 million in security by September 30, 2025. This decision underscores the strict interpretation of Rule 158(1) RoP regarding acceptable forms of financial guarantees in UPC proceedings.
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.