Medical_Devices — European UPC Patent Cases
225 decisions indexed
Page 3 of 8 · 225 total
Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG v.BAG Diagnostics GmbH
In this provisional measures case, Imusyn GmbH & Co. KG sought urgent relief against BAG Diagnostics GmbH concerning EP 3 548 898 B1. Although the core infringement dispute remains pending, the court recognized that the respondent was simultaneously challenging the patent's validity. Consequently, the Düsseldorf Local Division proactively ordered the assignment of an additional technically qualified judge to ensure expert handling of the complex technical and legal issues from the outset.
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v.Koninklijke Philips N.V.; Philips RS North America LLC; Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
In this UPC case concerning advanced brain monitoring technology, the claimant sought permission to amend its statement of claim to reflect a newer version (B2) of the patent instead of the original version (B1). The Court of First Instance dismissed the application for amendment. However, recognizing the technical reality that the B2 version was retroactively valid from the grant date, the court admitted the revised pleading into the case file, ensuring the proceedings proceed on the correct legal basis.
N.J DIFFUSION SARL v.GISELA MAYER GmbH
In this complex UPC case involving hairpiece technology, the Paris Local Division addressed issues of patent scope and procedural admissibility amidst the claimant's judicial reorganization. While the court found the infringement action admissible, it ultimately rejected all claims against GISELA MAYER GmbH for infringing EP 2404516. Significantly, the decision also mandated that N.J DIFFUSION SARL bear a provisionary cost of €50,000 to cover the respondent's legal fees.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. v.A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l.
This UPC decision addresses procedural challenges raised by the defendants (Menarini and Sinocare) seeking to postpone an oral hearing in provisional measures proceedings initiated by Abbott regarding CGM system patents. The court firmly rejected the postponement requests, emphasizing the inherent urgency of interim relief applications. This ruling reinforces the principle that scheduling decisions in preliminary relief cases are subject to strict judicial discretion, requiring special circumstances for deviation.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
In this UPC provisional measures case, Aesculap AG sought to enforce a prior disclosure order against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding specific surgical instruments. The court ruled that while the underlying obligation was already in place, it granted the request for coercive fines (Zwangsgeld). This decision is significant as it provides strong enforcement teeth to discovery and information-gathering orders within the UPC framework, ensuring patentees can effectively compel disclosure from alleged infringers.
EOFLOW Co., Ltd. v.Insulet Corporation
This UPC decision involves a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning advanced medical device technology (insulin pumps). EOFLOW challenged Insulet's European Patent EP4201327, while Insulet counterclaimed for infringement. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of default judgments and mandated a unitary approach to cost calculations in parallel proceedings. This case highlights the UPC's focus on substantive fairness alongside strict adherence to procedural rules.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex interplay between patent revocation and infringement claims concerning an insulin pump. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding the issuance of decisions by default, stressing the need for robust evidence rather than relying solely on procedural failures. Additionally, it reinforced the principle of unitary cost application when multiple parties (manufacturer and distributor) are involved in parallel litigation over the same patented technology.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation and the defendants reached a comprehensive settlement in their UPC infringement and revocation proceedings concerning the transcatheter heart valve prosthesis EP 2628464. The Court confirmed this agreement, effectively closing the case while granting confidentiality to sensitive terms of the deal. This decision highlights how parties can utilize Art. 79 UPCA to resolve complex patent disputes without a full judicial determination on validity or infringement.
Sibio Technology Limited v.Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.
In this Central Division revocation action, Sibio Technology Limited challenged the validity of Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.'s patent EP 3 831 283 B1. The core dispute centered on whether the device's design constituted an inventive step over prior art documents. The Court ultimately dismissed the revocation claim, finding that the claimed invention demonstrated sufficient inventive merit and was not invalidated by the cited prior art. The decision also addressed procedural issues regarding late-filed arguments and the application of Rule 75(3) RoP in subsequent actions, reinforcing principles of flexibility and efficiency within the UPC framework. This ruling provides clarity on how courts assess non-obviousness when a dramatic design change is involved.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril Life Sciences Pvt Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica, UAB, Interlux, UAB, Vab-Logistik, UAB
Edwards Lifesciences successfully sued Meril Life Sciences and associated entities for infringing its patent EP 3 769 722, which covers a low profile delivery system for transcatheter heart valves (TAVI). The UPC Court of First Instance found that the defendants' products literally infringe the patented technology. This decision is significant as it reinforces the enforceability of specialized medical device patents within the unified patent court framework, particularly in complex TAVI applications.
bioMérieux UK Limited v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this UPC revocation case, bioMérieux initiated proceedings against Labrador Diagnostics concerning patent EP 3 756 767 B1. Following an interim conference, the Court recognized that the sheer volume of invalidity attacks presented by bioMérieux was unsustainable for a focused oral hearing. The panel mandated that bioMérieux streamline its strategy, selecting only the most promising and logically consistent set of attacks to ensure procedural efficiency.
bioMérieux Deutschland GmbH, bioMérieux Italia S.p.A., bioMérieux SA, bioMérieux Austria GmbH, bioMérieux Benelux BV, bioMérieux Portugal, Lda. v.Labrador Diagnostics LLC
In this complex UPC case involving bioMérieux and Labrador Diagnostics, the Court issued a critical procedural order following an interim conference. Recognizing that the patent EP 3 756 767 B1 faced an overwhelming number of invalidity attacks, the Panel mandated that the challenging party (bioMérieux) significantly narrow its focus. This ruling emphasizes the need for legal rigor and strategic clarity in complex revocation proceedings, ensuring the oral hearing remains focused on the most promising grounds of attack.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH regarding the alleged infringement of its surgical instrument patent (EP 2 892 442 B1). While the core request for injunctions was dismissed, the court issued significant procedural rulings. These rulings clarify how courts handle parties who fail to attend oral hearings and set a high bar for what constitutes a 'substantially contested' allegation of infringement in UPC proceedings.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural requirements surrounding appeals in revocation actions. It clarifies that a separate court fee is due for an appeal against the main revocation action and any counterclaim for revocation, regardless of how the CFI combines its decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal fees to both parties following the mutual withdrawal of the underlying actions, setting important precedents on procedural costs.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a procedural matter concerning the reimbursement of court fees following a settlement in a revocation action. Tandem Diabetes, which had appealed a dismissal by the Central Division Paris, successfully applied for a refund of 60% of its appeal costs. The ruling confirms that if an action is settled before the written procedure concludes, the party responsible for the initial costs is entitled to this partial reimbursement under UPC Rules of Procedure.
Advanced Bionics AG v.MED-EL ELEKTROMEDIZINISCHE GERÄTE GESELLSCHAFT m.b.H.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the procedural aspects of a revocation action and its associated counterclaim for revocation. The parties mutually agreed to withdraw both actions, leading to the closure of the proceedings. Crucially, the court clarified that appeals against these two distinct actions require separate court fees, regardless of how the CFI combined the decisions. Furthermore, the court granted partial reimbursement of appeal costs based on specific procedural rules.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
This UPC decision addresses a motion regarding the partial refund of court fees following multiple settlements in an infringement and revocation action concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. Despite reaching agreements, the claimants and respondents sought fee refunds based on procedural rules. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied these requests, holding that because the oral proceedings had already concluded when the settlements were reached, the criteria for reimbursement under UPC Rules could not be satisfied. This ruling emphasizes the court's focus on administrative efficiency and the actual workload generated by complex settlement procedures.
Aesculap AG v.Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)
Aesculap AG initiated proceedings against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) concerning EP 2 892 442 B1, a patent related to surgical torque-transmitting instruments. The Düsseldorf Local Court issued an order setting the technical scope of Claim 1 for the upcoming oral hearing on July 1, 2025. This procedural step is crucial as it defines the precise features that will be debated regarding potential infringement or validity in this UPC case.
Emboline, Inc. v.AorticLab srl
This UPC Court of Appeal decision clarifies the scope of security for costs under Art. 69(4) UPCA. The court ruled that a claimant cannot request security for costs in an infringement action, even if they subsequently file a counterclaim for revocation. The core reasoning is that the purpose of security for costs—protecting a defendant from an insolvent initiating party—does not apply when the defense (revocation counterclaim) is merely a necessary response to the initial claim.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS
In a procedural ruling concerning the protection of confidential information, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC granted an order to classify certain details from a settlement agreement as trade secrets. This decision reinforces the practical application of Article 58 EPC and Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure within the UPC framework. The case highlights how parties can seek judicial protection for sensitive business information during complex litigation, even when the core infringement claims are not addressed.
Tandem Diabetes Care Europe B.V. v.Roche Diabetes Care GmbH
Tandem Diabetes Care appealed a decision from the Central Division Paris regarding the revocation of EP 2 196 231, which covered an ambulatory drug infusion system. Before the Court of Appeal could rule on the appeal, both parties reached a settlement agreement. The UPC Court of Appeal subsequently confirmed this settlement, formally terminating all proceedings related to the patent.
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation v.Meril GmbH, Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd., Meril Italy S.r.l.
This procedural order in the UPC Local Division Munich addressed rectification requests filed by Meril (the defendants) concerning a prior infringement and revocation action involving Edwards Lifesciences' prosthetic heart valve patent. The court agreed to correct several statements in the original decision, including clarifying claim scope and correcting clerical errors regarding opposition dates and disclosure orders. This ruling underscores the procedural mechanisms available within the UPC for correcting obvious mistakes in judicial decisions.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In a procedural ruling, the Düsseldorf Local Division of the UPC confirmed a settlement agreement reached between F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Tandem Diabetes Care, Inc., concerning EP 1 970 677 B1. The court upheld the request for confidentiality regarding the terms of this settlement. While the case against these two parties is concluded via settlement, litigation continues against other defendants involved in the infringement proceedings.
Versah LLC v.HaeNaem Co., Ltd.
Versah LLC initiated an infringement lawsuit concerning EP 3 402 420 B1. However, before the written proceedings concluded, Versah reached an out-of-court settlement with one of the defendants (Respondent 2). The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the claimant's request for partial withdrawal against this specific defendant and terminated those proceedings. This case highlights how private settlements can directly impact the trajectory and scope of UPC litigation.
INSULET CORPORATION v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC decision addresses a complex dispute between medical device manufacturers EOFLOW and INSULET concerning the insulin pump patent EP4201327. The case involved parallel revocation and infringement actions, alongside preliminary injunction proceedings. The court provided important procedural guidance regarding default judgments and cost caps in multi-party litigation. Practitioners should note the emphasis on literal claim interpretation and the necessity of a unitary approach when dealing with related infringers.
MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v.Advanced Bionics AG, Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl
In this UPC case, MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. initiated proceedings against Advanced Bionics entities regarding patent EP 4 074 373 B1. However, the parties mutually agreed to withdraw the claim. The court formally granted the withdrawal and terminated the case. This decision highlights how mutual settlements can lead to a swift conclusion of complex UPC litigation.
Hologic, Inc. v.Siemens Healthineers AG
This UPC Local Division decision addressed a request for security for costs filed by Siemens Healthineers against Hologic in an infringement and revocation action. Siemens argued that enforcing potential cost orders would be unduly burdensome due to Hologic's US domicile, citing lack of international judgment recognition treaties. The Court rejected this argument, emphasizing that the burden lies on the applicant to prove undue burden with specific evidence regarding foreign law application. This ruling reinforces the high evidentiary threshold required for security for costs applications in UPC proceedings.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG v.Rubin Medical ApS
In a case involving Roche and Tandem Diabetes Care against Rubin Medical, the UPC Local Chamber of Düsseldorf issued an important procedural order concerning trade secret protection. The court successfully granted the request to classify specific documents as confidential under Article 58 EPC. This ruling sets strict boundaries on who can access sensitive information during the ongoing infringement proceedings, emphasizing the importance of confidentiality protocols in high-stakes biotech litigation.
Meril Life Sciences Pvt. Ltd v.SWAT Medical AB and Respondent 1 (Helsingborg)
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed procedural issues concerning public access to court documents and representation requirements. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot simultaneously act as their own representative in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process. Additionally, the ruling clarified that cost compensation is generally not available for requests made under R. 262.1(b) RoP regarding public access to the register.
Meril Italy S.r.l. v.SWAT Medical AB
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses procedural matters, specifically the requirements for representation and public access to court documents. The court ruled that an individual holding a high-level management position cannot represent their company in UPC proceedings, emphasizing due process considerations. Additionally, the ruling clarifies that applications seeking access to the register generally do not qualify for cost compensation under the UPC rules. This decision is significant for practitioners as it reinforces strict procedural requirements regarding representation and sets clear boundaries on recoverable costs related to public disclosure requests.
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.