Short Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in a patent infringement case concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, brought by Aesculap AG against three Shanghai Bojin-related entities. The court addressed four procedural matters: scheduling the oral hearing, the claimant's request to extend claims to include an additional product called the 'Bojin Rosenfräser,' the addition of Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a new party, and Defendant 1's request for re-establishment of rights. The court set the oral hearing for June 17, 2026, ordered the addition of the new party, and provisionally assessed the remaining requests while reserving final decisions for further deliberation.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) was issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf on December 4, 2025, in case UPC_CFI_307/2025, concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The claimant is Aesculap AG, a German company based in Tuttlingen, represented by the law firm Kather Augenstein. The respondents are three related entities: Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd., Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), and Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd. The order was issued by the presiding judge Thomas acting as the rapporteur (Berichterstatter).
The order addressed four procedural matters under the Rules of Procedure: R. 28 (setting the date for oral hearing), R. 263 (extension of claims/Klageerweiterung), R. 305 (addition of a party), and R. 320 (re-establishment of rights/Wiedereinsetzung in den vorherigen Stand). The claimant sought to extend the proceedings to include an additional product referred to as the 'Bojin Rosenfräser' (rose cutter/burr). Defendants 1 and 3 objected to this extension, arguing that the requirements of R. 263 RoP were not met. Additionally, Defendant 1 sought re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP, while the claimant requested the addition of Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a new party to the proceedings.
& Analysis: After hearing the parties, the court scheduled the oral hearing for Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 09:30 in Saal BZ 5, Cecilienallee 3, 40474 Düsseldorf, with the rapporteur reserving decision on an interim hearing (Zwischenanhörung) for a later date. The court ordered the addition of Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a party to the proceedings. Regarding Defendant 1's request for re-establishment of rights, the court noted that such re-establishment appeared problematic based on the current submissions, particularly concerning the implementation of a proper 'spot check' (Stichprobenkontrolle) by the lawyers. However, the court also considered that Defendant 1's arguments regarding Defendant 3's statement of defense had indirectly entered the proceedings regardless. On the claimant's request to include the 'Bojin Rosenfräser,' the court acknowledged the defendants' objections under R. 263 RoP but raised the question of whether this product would already fall under a decision in the present proceedings, and indicated that further consideration would be given to this issue.
Final Order & Ruling: The court set the oral hearing date for June 17, 2026; ordered the addition of Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a party; provisionally assessed Defendant 1's re-establishment request as problematic but noted that its arguments had indirectly entered the proceedings; and provisionally addressed the parties' positions on the extension to the 'Bojin Rosenfräser' product, signaling that further deliberation would follow. The text of the order is truncated at the end, suggesting additional reasoning and orders were to follow.
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 Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. a. o. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hand Held Products, Inc.vsScandit AG
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning a patent infringement action regarding EP 3 764 271. The plaintiff Hand Held Products, Inc. filed suit on November 6, 2024, alleging infringement by the defendant Scandit AG, which is based in Switzerland. The order resolves a discrepancy between the actual date of service (November 20, 2024) and the date automatically recorded in the Case Management System (November 23, 2024), which was based on an inapplicable service fiction under Rule 271.6 of the Rules of Procedure.
***vsEssetre Holding spa
A revocation action was filed against Essetre Holding s.p.a. concerning European Patent No. EP 2 875 923 B1, which relates to a machine for machining walls, particularly walls made of wood or multilayer walls. The claimant argued that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked novelty over a German patent document (DE 34 12 441 C2) and a YouTube video, and lacked inventive step over the prior art in combination with common general knowledge or additional cited references. The Court addressed the interpretation of the term 'a working surface' in the independent claim, affirming that it should be interpreted as meaning 'one working surface' based on its ordinary meaning and the context of the patent's description and drawings.
Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsSinocare et al.
This is a provisional measures order from the Court of First Instance, Local Division in The Hague, concerning European patent EP4344633. Applicant Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., a market leader in continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) systems with its FreeStyle Libre product, sought provisional measures against Defendants Sinocare Inc. and A.Menarini Diagnostics s.r.l. in connection with their GlucoMen iCan CGM system. The dispute centers on an alleged infringement of Abbott's unitary patent relating to CGM technology, with Sinocare manufacturing the device and Menarini holding exclusive distribution rights in over 20 European countries.
Amycell LLCvs***
1 Local Division The Hague UPC_CFI_499/2024 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 09/12/2025 regarding: R.356 and R.353 APPLICANT/DEFENDANT IN THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS 1) Spyra (Applicant) - - - - Represented by Michal Przyluski RE
Orange SA, and other representatives of Bardehle PagenbergvsHMD Global Oy, Orange SA
Orange SA, the proprietor of European patent EP 2 345 029 B1 relating to audio decoding under the MPEG-4 Part 3-AAC standard, sued HMD Global Oy for patent infringement regarding HMD smartphones and tablets running Android 9 or higher. HMD filed a counterclaim for revocation, an exhaustion objection, and a FRAND defence, and later requested that the counterclaim for revocation be made conditional on a finding of infringement. The Paris Local Division accepted the conditional counterclaim approach and examined infringement first, ultimately finding that Orange failed to prove infringement because the Claimant's demonstration relied on additional corrective information inconsistent with the technical teaching of the patent.
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.