Short Summary
The Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court addressed a request by the defendants to suspend proceedings pending parallel opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office concerning EP 3 685 783 B1 (an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies). The court rejected the suspension request, holding that suspension under Rule 295 RoP is generally not warranted when the UPC oral hearing precedes the EPO Opposition Division hearing, nor is it necessarily required merely because the Opposition Division revoked the patent between the UPC hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date. The court also admitted the plaintiff's late-filed auxiliary requests and appointed a court expert under Rule 185 RoP to resolve disputed technical questions regarding the accused embodiment.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns proceedings UPC_CFI_714/2024 and UPC_CFI_155/2025 before the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court, decided on April 2, 2026.
Parties and Patent:
The plaintiff is biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG (Austria), holder of EP 3 685 783 B1, a European patent with unitary effect concerning an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies. The patent descends from a series of divisional applications originating from WO 2009/108956 A1. The defendants are Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International (Latvia), who developed and marketed the accused product 'Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber' through websites www.lightguide.de and www.lightguide.com.
Procedural Background:
On July 19, 2024, the first defendant filed an opposition at the EPO seeking full revocation of the patent. On October 22, 2025, the Opposition Division communicated its preliminary view that the patent did not meet the requirements of Articles 76(1) and 123(2) EPC, giving the parties until December 12, 2025 to respond. On October 28, 2025, the defendants requested suspension of the UPC proceedings and cancellation of the interim hearing (November 21, 2025) and oral hearing (December 17-18, 2025). The plaintiff opposed this on November 7, 2025.
At the November 21, 2025 interim hearing, the plaintiff announced additional auxiliary requests to align with the EPO proceedings. The defendants objected to these as untimely. Following the agreed procedure, the plaintiff filed auxiliary requests (B-Hilfsanträge) on November 21, 2025, and the defendants responded on December 5, 2025. The oral hearing before the UPC took place on December 17, 2025, where the plaintiff presented auxiliary requests in the order 10B, 1B through 9B.
On February 3, 2026, the EPO Opposition Division revoked the patent (decision not yet final). The oral hearing before the Opposition Division had been scheduled for January 13, 2026.
Court's Reasoning:
1. Suspension Request: The court rejected the defendants' suspension request. It held that suspension under Rule 295(a) RoP is generally not warranted when the UPC oral hearing precedes the EPO Opposition Division hearing. Furthermore, suspension is not necessarily required merely because the Opposition Division revoked the patent between the UPC oral hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date, since an appeal decision is not expected in the short term and proper administration of justice (Rule 295(m) RoP) does not mandate suspension in light of the revocation.
2. Admissibility of Auxiliary Requests: The court admitted the plaintiff's auxiliary requests filed on November 21, 2025. It found these were prompted by the EPO Opposition Division's October 22, 2025 communication and could not have been filed earlier with due diligence. The plaintiff was not required to file them by the November 7, 2025 deadline, which concerned only the response to the suspension request. The defendants were not unduly prejudiced as they could respond both in writing and orally.
3. Substantive Assessment: The court provisionally found that the patent as granted likely lacks validity, as the original application only discloses fusing between the cap and the fiber core, not fusing with other fiber elements. However, the court noted that the auxiliary requests might address these concerns.
4. Technical Questions: The parties disputed whether the helical grooves of the accused embodiment produce lateral emission through refraction or total internal reflection, whether radiation emitted into the grooves is further refracted laterally at the cap, and whether the cap is fused with the core or cladding of the optical fiber. Since the parties' tests produced incompatible results, the court appointed a court expert under Rule 185 RoP to answer three specific technical questions.
Final Order:
I. The defendants' suspension request was rejected.
II. A court expert was appointed to answer three technical questions regarding the accused embodiment.
III. The parties were given until April 17, 2026 to comment on the order and propose candidates for the court expert.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG vs Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH & S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
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.
Dolby International ABvsEpson France SAS
Dolby International AB filed a patent infringement action against Epson France SAS and four other Epson entities before the Local Chamber Hamburg concerning European Patent EP 3 605 534 B1. Epson France SAS objected under Rule 19.1(a) of the Rules of Procedure, arguing the court lacked jurisdiction because Dolby's withdrawal of its prior opt-out was invalid, as it did not cover all states where the patent had been granted. The court rejected the objection as unfounded, holding that the withdrawal was effectively declared for all relevant states through the CMS system and that the subsequent 'correction' was merely a clarification, and ordered the proceedings to continue.
DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC.vsGreenchemicals S.R.L.
This case concerned an application for provisional measures filed by DDP Specialty Electronic Materials US, LLC. against Greenchemicals S.R.L. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in relation to European Patent EP 1 957 544 B1. The applicant withdrew its application for preliminary measures with the defendant's consent, and the court permitted the withdrawal, closed the proceedings, cancelled the scheduled oral hearing, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees paid by the applicant.
Avago Technologies International Sales Pte. LimitedvsTesla Manufacturing Brandenburg SE/Tesla Germany GmbH
Unified Patent Court decision.
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbHvsPatent Proprietors of EP 3 170 639 B1
Stäubli Tec-Systems GmbH filed a nullity action against European Patent EP 3 170 639 B1 before the Central Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court. In response to prior art documents first submitted with the nullity complaint, the patent proprietors acknowledged the nullity claim and surrendered the patent in full. Both parties declared the main proceedings moot under Rule 360 RoP. The court held that it is generally unfair to impose costs on a patent proprietor who immediately surrenders the patent in reaction to prior art first presented with the nullity action, and ordered the plaintiff to bear the costs while granting a 60% refund of court fees.
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.