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
Align Technology, Inc.vsAngelalign Technology Inc. a. o.
Align Technology, Inc. sought provisional measures against the Angelalign Technology group for alleged infringement of European Patent EP 4 346 690 B1, which relates to automated management of clinical modifications to orthodontic treatment plans. The Local Division Düsseldorf granted the application in part, issuing a preliminary injunction against five of the six defendants regarding the 'iOrtho' software (release 5.2 with 'Live Now' function) and aligners manufactured accordingly, but rejected the application against the European holding company defendant. The defendants were ordered to pay a penalty of up to EUR 10,000 per infringing product and EUR 400,000 in provisional cost reimbursement.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsRespondent
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order following the parties' settlement, resulting in the withdrawal of the infringement action brought by Panasonic Holdings Corporation against several Xiaomi entities and other defendants, as well as the joint nullity counterclaim filed by the defendants. The court confirmed the parties' agreement and addressed the cost consequences, including an increase in the dispute value from 4 to 8 million euros, which led to additional court fees owed by the plaintiff.
Cardo Systems, Ltd.vsShenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology Co., Ltd.and Resosport Limited
Cardo Systems, proprietor of EP 4 240 194 B1 relating to fastening devices for head-protective gear, obtained an ex parte injunction and seizure order against Shenzhen Ziwu Chuangxin Technology and Resosport Limited on 5 November 2025 during the EICMA motorcycle trade fair in Milan. The respondents applied for review of the order, challenging validity, infringement, and the balance of interests. The Milan Local Division revoked the provisional measures in their entirety, finding no infringement, no urgency, and that Cardo had breached its duty of candour, while ordering Cardo to pay EUR 28,000 in interim costs and partially releasing the security deposit.
1) Genevant Sciences GmbH, 2) Arbutus Biopharma Corpora7onvs1) Moderna, Inc., 2) MODERNATX, INC.
This case concerned infringement proceedings (UPC-CFI-191/2025) and a counterclaim for revocation (UPC-CFI-617/2025) brought by Genevant Sciences GmbH and Arbutus Biopharma Corporation against multiple Moderna entities regarding European Patent EP2279254. The parties reached a settlement and jointly requested withdrawal of their respective claims and closure of the proceedings. The court allowed the withdrawal, declared both proceedings closed, and ordered reimbursement of 25% of the court fees, reduced from the standard 50% due to the exceptional circumstances of the case.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A.vsSichuan Yuanxing Rubber Co., Ltd.
Pirelli Tyre S.p.A. filed an application under Rule 353 RoP seeking rectification of a decision issued on 26.5.2026 in proceedings concerning EP 3 519 207 B1 (motorcycles tyre). Pirelli argued that the decision erroneously stated it had filed an opt-out declaration on 30.6.2023, which was later withdrawn on 26.11.2024, when in fact it had never filed any opt-out. The Court found the rectification request admissible and ordered the deletion of the erroneous sentence from page 9 of the decision.
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.