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
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.