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
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
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.