UPC Analytics
DEEN
Übersicht · Eingereicht: —

ACT_19943/2025

STAPLE CARTRIDGE

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenThe Hague LDApplication for provisional measures—
ÜbersichtEntscheidungenBegründungZitateDokumenteZeitverlauf
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC (Johnson & Johnson group) applied for a preliminary injunction against RiVOLUTiON GmbH concerning EP 3 689 262, a staple cartridge patent for surgical staplers, before The Hague Local Division. The court dismissed the application for lack of temporal urgency, finding that Cilag had known or should have known by November 2024 — following the Bariatric Study result — of the potential infringement and related market risks, and that subsequent developments regarding Sana group did not revive urgency. Cilag was ordered to pay EUR 80,000 in interim costs to Rivolution.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Temporal urgency for provisional measures not established because applicant knew or should have known of infringement risk by November 2024

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP

    Hinweis: The Hague Local Division held that Cilag's knowledge of the Bariatric Study results and Rivolution's market presence since November 2024 meant urgency was not established; the fact that Cilag only properly studied the facts in April 2025 could not create urgency retroactively.

  • Sana group tender outcome did not revive urgency as it was foreseeable from November 2024

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP

    Hinweis: Rivolution demonstrated it had been listed as a Sana supplier since January 2023 and that both parties participated in a 2023 Sana tender; Cilag should have appreciated the potential market impact after November 2024.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (Sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in April 2025

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP

    Begründung: The court found that all relevant facts were available to Cilag by November 2024 at the latest; delay in properly analysing known facts cannot itself create urgency for provisional measures.

  • David vs. Goliath argument: Cilag's larger market position vs. Rivolution's smaller size creates special urgency

    Kläger

    Begründung: The court acknowledged the argument as a potentially legitimate consideration but found it could not create urgency in circumstances where the factual basis for urgency was already available to Cilag much earlier.

  • Applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admitted

    Kläger

    Begründung: Dismissed: proceedings are closed after the oral hearing and further evidence is not admitted.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
temporal urgency for provisional measures under R. 211.4 RoPurgency assessed from when applicant knew or should have known of infringementdelay in analysing known facts cannot revive urgencycosts follow the event in PI proceedings

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.