Short Summary
This is a procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1, relating to a cutting tool of a surgical torque-transmitting instrument. The presiding judge, acting as rapporteur, set out the intended feature breakdown (Merkmalsgliederung) of patent claim 1 to be used as the basis for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025. The order also referenced a Court of Appeal decision from April 30, 2025 (Insulet v. EOFlow) regarding the scope of information sought by the applicant.
Detailed Summary
The proceedings concern European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1 and were brought before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The applicant 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, and legally represented by the law firm Kather Augenstein in Düsseldorf. The respondent is Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe), based in Hamburg, Germany, represented by its legal representative Mr. Liang Jin, and legally represented by patent attorneys from IK-Ip Ltd in London. The applicant was supported by European Patent Attorney and European Patent Litigator Michael Wegerer of Winter Brandl Partnerschaft mbB.
The order was issued under Rule 9 of the Rules of Procedure, providing indications in preparation for the oral hearing. The patent at issue relates to a cutting tool of a surgical, torque-transmitting instrument, featuring a distal engagement segment and a tool shaft with a proximal end portion designed for torque-transmitting insertion into a tool holder. The proximal end portion is divided into functional sections for torque transmission and axial locking, with the axial locking section axially spaced from and positioned proximally to the torque transmission section relative to the engagement segment. The torque transmission section features a double-flat (Zweiflach) with two diametrically opposed engagement planes having longitudinal sides and longitudinal edges. Additionally, the proximal end portion includes a further functional section for a screwing-in aid positioned axially between the torque transmission and axial locking sections, featuring wedge-shaped sliding surfaces.
& Analysis:
The presiding judge Thomas, acting as rapporteur, prepared a detailed feature breakdown of patent claim 1 to serve as the analytical framework for the oral hearing. The breakdown distinguished between mandatory features and preferred features (indicated in brackets), such as the wedge-shaped convergence of the engagement planes toward the axial locking section, and the preferred configuration of the screwing-in aid as part of the torque transmission section or in the area of a radial shoulder. The order also addressed the scope of the information (Auskunft) sought by the applicant, referencing the Court of Appeal's order of April 30, 2025 in case UPC_CoA_768/2024 (Insulet v. EOFlow), paragraphs 129–132, for guidance on the appropriate extent of such disclosure.
Final Order & Ruling:
The court indicated its intention to apply the specified feature breakdown to patent claim 1 during the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025. The order further directed the parties' attention to the Court of Appeal's reasoning in the Insulet v. EOFlow decision regarding the permissible scope of the applicant's information request. This was a preparatory procedural order and did not constitute a final ruling on infringement or validity.
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 Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) vs Aesculap AG 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.