Short Summary
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1. Aesculap AG, as applicant, sought provisional measures against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe). The presiding judge issued indications in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025, including a proposed feature breakdown of patent claim 1 relating to a cutting tool of a surgical, torque-transmitting instrument.
Detailed Summary
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued on June 23, 2025, by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court under case number UPC_CFI_213/2025 (main file ACT_12013/2025, order ORD_29757/2025). The proceedings concern an application for provisional measures (Antrag auf Anordnung einstweiliger Maßnahmen) regarding European Patent EP 2 892 442 B1.
The applicant (Antragstellerin) is Aesculap AG, represented by its board members Dr. Jens von Lackum, Andreas Hahn, and Prof. Dr. Holger Reinecke, based in Tuttlingen, Germany. Aesculap was represented by lawyers from 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), represented by its legal representative Liang Jin, based in Hamburg, Germany. The respondent was represented by patent attorneys from IK-Ip Ltd in London.
The order was issued by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas acting as rapporteur, pursuant to R. 9 of the Rules of Procedure (VerfO), providing indications in preparation for the oral hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025.
The substantive content of the order includes:
1. A proposed feature breakdown (Merkmalsgliederung) for patent claim 1, which relates to a cutting tool (spanabhebendes Werkzeug) of a surgical, torque-transmitting instrument. The breakdown identifies key features including a distal engagement segment (Eingriffssegment), a tool shaft (Werkzeugschaft) with a proximal end portion prepared for torque-transmitting insertion into a tool holder, and various functional sections including 'torque transmission' (Drehmoment-Übertragung) and 'axial locking' (Axialverriegelung). The breakdown further details a two-flat (Zweiflach) configuration with diametrically opposed engagement planes, and an additional 'screw-in aid' (Eindrehhilfe) functional section with wedge-shaped sliding surfaces.
2. A reference to the Court of Appeal's order dated April 30, 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024, APL_64374/2024, paragraphs 129-132 – Insulet v. EOFlow) regarding the scope of the information (Auskunft) sought by the applicant.
The order was signed digitally by Presiding Judge Ronny Thomas on June 23, 2025, in Düsseldorf.
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 International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Centripetal LimitedvsKeysight Technologies, Inc. et al.
Centripetal Limited sued Keysight Technologies, Inc. and Keysight Technologies Deutschland GmbH for direct infringement of Claim 16 and indirect infringement of Claim 1 of European Patent EP 3 821 580 B1, relating to methods and systems for efficient network protection, in Germany, Italy, France, and the Netherlands. The core dispute centered on the construction of the 'broker' feature and whether the defendants' Network Visibility products implemented the claimed three-stage security system. The Local Division Mannheim dismissed the infringement action, finding that the claimant failed to substantiate that the attacked embodiments performed the claimed broker functionality of determining a cyber analysis system based on threat metadata.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.vsAmgen Technology (Ireland) Unlimited Company, Amgen N.V., Amgen GmbH, Amgen AB, Amgen S.A.S., Amgen s.r.l., Amgen Biofarmacêutica Lda., Amgen Zdravila D.O.O.
Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the proprietor of European Patent 3 167 888 B1 relating to the antibody eculizumab for treating paroxysmal nocturnal hemoglobinuria, sought provisional measures against Amgen, which markets BEKEMV®, a biosimilar of Soliris®. The Court of First Instance (Hamburg Local Division) dismissed Alexion's application, and Alexion appealed. The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal, holding that the patent's SEQ ID NO:4 sequence must be interpreted as including 22 extra amino acids at the N-terminus, and that Alexion had failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the skilled person would correct this as an error, rendering the patent claim more likely than not insufficiently disclosed under Art. 83 EPC.
Promosome LLCvsBioNTech 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 is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a patent infringement action brought by Promosome LLC against multiple BioNTech and Pfizer entities regarding European patent EP 2 401 365. Promosome applied under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure for the protection of confidential information contained in Exhibits VB 4a and VB 4b, which relate to an underlying license agreement and its amendment. The court granted the application, classifying the information as confidential and restricting access to specifically identified representatives and natural persons on behalf of the Defendants.
Telefonaktiebolaget LM EricssonvsAsustek Computer Inc., Arvato Netherlands B.V., and Digital River Ireland Ltd.
This case concerns the withdrawal of infringement and revocation proceedings involving EP 2727342 at the Milan Local Division. Following Digital River Ireland Ltd.'s insolvency and winding-up order by the High Court of Ireland, both Ericsson and Digital River sought to withdraw their respective claims against each other. The Court allowed both withdrawals, with the main infringement action continuing against Asustek and Arvato, and ordered both parties to bear their own costs based on principles of fairness and equity.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KGvsIndustria Lombarda Materiale Elettrico I.L.M.E. S.p.A. and ILME GmbH Elektrotechnische Handelsgesellschaft
This is an order from the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning a procedural objection (R. 19.1(a) and R. 20.1 RoP) raised by the defendants against an infringement action based on European Patent EP 3 602 692. The defendants argued that the court lacked temporal jurisdiction over alleged infringing acts occurring before the entry into force of the UPCA on 1 June 2023. The presiding judge rejected the objection, holding that jurisdiction and applicable law are separate concepts, and that the UPC's jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(a) UPCA extends to infringement acts that occurred before the UPCA's entry into force and/or between an opt-out and its withdrawal.
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.