Short Summary
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The court scheduled an oral hearing for June 17, 2026, added Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd as a party, and proposed a consensual procedural approach regarding a request for restitutio in integrum by Defendant 1 and the inclusion of the 'Bojin Rosenfräser' product embodiment into the proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued on December 4, 2025, by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf (Lokalkammer Düsseldorf) of the Unified Patent Court in case UPC_CFI_307/2025, concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas as Rapporteur.
The applicant (plaintiff) is Aesculap AG, a German company based in Tuttlingen, represented by the law firm Kather Augenstein. The respondents (defendants) are: (1) Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd. (Shanghai, China), represented by Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft; (2) Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (Hamburg, Germany), represented by IK-Ip Ltd; and (3) Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd (Shanghai, China), also represented by Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft.
The order addresses four procedural matters: R. 28 RoP (scheduling of oral hearing), R. 263 RoP (extension of claims/amendment of pleadings), R. 305 RoP (addition of a party), and R. 320 RoP (restitutio in integrum).
Key rulings and proposals:
1. An oral hearing was scheduled for Wednesday, June 17, 2026, at 09:30 in Room BZ 5, Cecilienallee 3, 40474 Düsseldorf. The Rapporteur reserved decision on whether to hold an interim hearing at a later date.
2. Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd was ordered to be added as a party to the proceedings.
3. Regarding Defendant 1's request for restitutio in integrum (reinstating a missed deadline), the court noted that such reinstatement appeared problematic based on the current submissions, particularly concerning the implementation of a proper 'spot check' (Stichprobenkontrolle) by the lawyers. However, the court acknowledged that Defendant 1's arguments regarding Defendant 3's reply had indirectly entered the proceedings anyway.
4. On the plaintiff's request to include the 'Bojin Rosenfräser' (rose cutter/burr) embodiment, Defendants 1 and 3 objected citing the alleged lack of requirements under R. 263 RoP. The court observed that this product might already fall under any decision in the present proceedings, and if not, a further lawsuit by the plaintiff would likely follow. Based on the current defense submissions, the court considered inclusion in the present proceedings to be more procedurally economical.
5. The court proposed the following consensual approach: (a) the plaintiff would withdraw its objections to the restitutio in integrum and agree that Defendant 1's reply (Duplik) of November 18, 2025 could be considered in the proceedings; (b) Defendants 1 and 3 would withdraw their objections to the inclusion of the 'Bojin Rosenfräser', making it — alongside the 'Bojin Diamantfräser' — jointly part of the proceedings (Defendant 2 had no objections); and (c) the court would set new deadlines for written submissions on the newly arising issues. The court confirmed that the scheduled oral hearing date would not be jeopardized.
6. The parties were given until December 11, 2025, to indicate whether they agreed with the proposed approach. If Defendant 1 did not agree, it was given the opportunity within the same deadline to respond to the plaintiff's objections against the restitutio in integrum.
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
Apple Inc. (Intervener) in Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd., Vivo Tech GmbH, Vivo Mobile Communication Iberia SL
This procedural order concerns Apple Inc.'s application to intervene in appeal proceedings before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court. Sun Patent Trust had appealed orders of the Paris Local Division that permitted three Vivo employees to access highly confidential information (HCI), including agreements between Sun Patent Trust and Apple. The Court of Appeal admitted Apple's intervention, finding that Apple had a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of the appeals as a party to the agreements containing the confidential information at issue.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLCvsInfoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH
The Local Division Hamburg of the Unified Patent Court addressed a preliminary objection filed by Defendant 1 (Infoblox Inc., a US company) contesting the UPC's international jurisdiction over it in an infringement action concerning EP 2 005 696 B1. The Claimant sought relief against all three defendants in Germany, France, Finland, and the UK. The court held that while jurisdiction under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation could be established via anchor defendants for UPC member states, the Claimant failed to plead facts showing that the anchor defendants (German entities) jointly infringed the UK part of the patent.
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG & Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH
Procedural order issued by the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on June 2, 2025, in consolidated proceedings concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288. Following an interim video hearing on May 28, 2025, the presiding judge set deadlines for the submission of consolidated formal requests, confirmed the date for the oral hearing on July 1, 2025, and fixed the dispute value at €3.125 million in total. The court also provided preliminary indications on the admissibility of the revocation counterclaim for Germany and on the scope of the defendant's prior submissions.
Canon Kabushiki KaishavsGeneral Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd., Katun Germany GmbH, Katun Corporation, and Katun (E.D.C.) B.V.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 686 683 B1, addressing the question of bifurcation under Article 33(3) UPCA. The court decided to hear both the patent infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation jointly, with the consent of all parties, for reasons of efficiency and to ensure a uniform interpretation of the patent.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This is a preparatory order issued by the Mannheim Local Division in a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 3 476 616, brought by FUJIFILM Corporation against three Kodak entities. The order sets out preliminary views and questions ahead of the oral hearing scheduled for 11–13 February 2025, addressing issues including the scope of remedies, applicable law for pre- and post-UPCA infringing acts, the value of the dispute, prior use defences, and validity questions concerning prior art documents WO 379 and US 952.
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.