Short Summary
This case concerns an order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, owned by Aesculap AG. Following a prior order dated July 10, 2025, which required Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) to cease offering, marketing, or using certain cutting tools for surgical torque-transmitting instruments in Germany and France, and to provide structured information about infringing products, the present order addresses Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure concerning the threat of coercive measures. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as rapporteur.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings concern European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, which relates to cutting tools (spanabhebende Werkzeuge) for surgical torque-transmitting instruments. The patent describes a tool with a distal engagement segment connected to a tool shaft, whose proximal end section is prepared for torque-transmitting insertion into a tool holder of the instrument. The proximal end section is divided into at least a functional section for torque transmission and an axially spaced functional section for axial locking, with an additional screwing aid functional section.
The applicant (Antragstellerin) is Aesculap AG, a company based in Tuttlingen, Germany, represented by its board members Dr. Jens von Lackum, Andreas Hahn, and Prof. Dr. Holger Reinecke. Aesculap was represented by lawyers from the firm Kather Augenstein in Düsseldorf, supported by European Patent Attorney Michael Wegerer from Winter Brandl Partnerschaft mbB.
The respondent (Antragsgegnerin) is Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), based in Hamburg, Germany, represented by its legal representative Mr. Liang Jin. The respondent was represented by patent attorneys from IK-Ip Ltd in London.
On July 10, 2025, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf had previously issued an order on the applicant's request, requiring the respondent to cease offering, placing on the market, or using certain infringing cutting tools in Germany and/or France. The infringing products were characterized by specific features including a screwing aid functional section arranged axially between the torque transmission and axial locking functional sections, a torque transmission section with a double-flat design, and a screwing aid section with wedge-shaped sliding surfaces.
Additionally, the respondent was ordered to provide the applicant with written and electronic information, structured by month and by patent-infringing products, regarding the origin and distribution channels of the infringing products, including names and addresses of producers, suppliers, and customers, quantities, and pricing information, dating back to July 11, 2018.
The present order relates to Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure (R. 354 VerfO), which concerns the threat of coercive measures (Androhung von Zwangsmitteln), indicating that the respondent had not complied with the prior order and the court was now threatening enforcement measures.
& Analysis:
The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as the rapporteur (Berichterstatter) of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The procedural framework under Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure provides for the threat of coercive measures to enforce compliance with court orders. The text indicates that the court was taking action to ensure compliance with the previously issued injunction and information order.
Final Order & Ruling:
The order was issued on July 30, 2025, by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf under case number UPC_CFI_213/2025, addressing the threat of coercive measures under Rule 354 of the Rules of Procedure in connection with the enforcement of the prior order of July 10, 2025, regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Aesculap AG vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)vsAesculap AG
This procedural order concerns the addition of a technically qualified judge to the panel in interim proceedings involving European Patent No. EP 2 892 442 B1. The applicant Aesculap AG sought interim measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and the respondent challenged the patent's validity on grounds of lack of novelty and inventive step. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf found it necessary and appropriate to supplement the panel with a technically qualified judge at the interim stage, given the substantive validity challenges raised and the likelihood that such a judge would also be needed in parallel main proceedings.
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGEvsRespondent
Procedural order of the Paris Local Division of the Unified Patent Court concerning a request for extension of time filed by the Bosch defendants. The judge-rapporteur rejected Bosch's request, finding that a non-redacted version of Valeo's 15 June 2026 filing had been deposited in the CMS simultaneously with the redacted version, and that Bosch had failed to exercise due diligence in accessing it. The court ruled that the deadlines under R.29(d) RdP run from 15 June 2026.
Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.vsHL Display AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Black Sheep Retail Products B.V.'s (BSRP) application for suspensive effect against an information order issued by the Hague Local Division in infringement proceedings brought by HL Display AB concerning EP 2 432 351. The Court of Appeal held that BSRP failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances warranting suspension, as information orders are necessary to ensure a high level of patent protection and BSRP had not shown manifest error or that the appeal would be devoid of purpose.
UPM Kymmene OyjvsInternational N&H Denmark ApS
UPM-Kymmene Oyj filed a revocation action against European Patent EP 2 611 800, owned by International N&H Denmark ApS (substituted for Virdia Inc.), concerning methods and systems for processing sugar mixtures and resultant compositions. The Claimant argued the patent was invalid due to added matter, lack of novelty, and lack of inventive step. The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court (Central Division, Section Munich) revoked the patent in its entirety, finding that the subject matter extended beyond the content of the earlier application as filed and that the claimed compositions lacked an inventive step.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsSinocare Inc. et al
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. filed an infringement action concerning European Patent EP4344633 against multiple defendants including Sinocare Inc. and various Menarini and Obelis entities. The defendants raised a preliminary objection challenging the court's jurisdiction over certain defendants and seeking to limit jurisdiction to UPC Contracting Member States. The judge-rapporteur deferred the decision on the preliminary objection to the main proceedings pursuant to Rule 20.2 of the Rules of Procedure, noting that the objection could not lead to complete dismissal and that relevant case law was still evolving.
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.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.