UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 1927/2025

10. Dez. 2025·EP3001984 · METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN ORTHOPAEDIC JOINT

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
25. Feb. 2026
Letzte Entscheidung
7. Mai 2026
Im Vergleich
Die Bilanz des Gerichts für diese Art von Verfahren, gezählt in erstinstanzlichen Entscheidungen. Eine Zahl in Klammern gibt an, auf wie vielen Entscheidungen eine Quote beruht.
Einstweilige Verfügung erlassenMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC54% (38/70)124
Dusseldorf LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Berenice ThomGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Peter AgergaardGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Ingo RinkenGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Simon MichelsGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA (3 Verfahren)·BrainPortfolio Inc. (2 Verfahren)

14 Tage kostenlos testenBereits Nutzer? Anmelden
Verwandte Verfahren
Alle Verfahren zu diesem Patent

Dieser Streit umfasst 1 weitere Verfahren

UPC CFI 2573/2026

1 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 1928/2025

Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.

Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-07
    Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application for provisional measures filed by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. concerning alleged indirect infringement of EP 3 001 984 B1. The court found that, on summary examination, it could not determine with the required certainty that the accused product (Kneuro microprocessor knee system) actually implements the claimed method, because the 'Donkey-Kick' activation movement constitutes an artificial, deliberate switching movement incompatible with the patent's requirement of intuitive/automatic control. Additionally, the court found it could not exclude that the claimant had acted with undue delay (Zuwarten) in filing the application, further undermining the urgency required for provisional measures.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (7)
    • Indirect (contributory) infringement of method claim for controlling a prosthetic knee joint
    • Claim construction of 'criteria' under feature 1.2(b): whether criteria must reflect natural movement patterns enabling intuitive/automatic control
    • Whether the 'Donkey-Kick' activation sequence in the accused product meets the patent's requirement of parameters reflecting natural prosthetic movement
    • Undue delay (unangemessenes Zuwarten) under R. 211.4 RoP: timing of the claimant's knowledge of potential infringement
    • Urgency (Dringlichkeit) as a prerequisite for provisional measures
    • Identity of BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. as legal entities (DBA issue)
    • Jurisdiction of the Düsseldorf Local Division under Art. 32(1)(c), Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA
  • 2026-02-25
    Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division issued a preliminary procedural order scheduling an oral hearing in the provisional measures proceedings by Ottobock against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for 22 April 2026. The order set filing deadlines for the parties' written submissions in preparation for the hearing and invited parties to notify participants. This is a case management order with no substantive ruling on the merits.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
    • Provisional measures oral hearing scheduling (R.209.1(b) RoP)
    • Case management order
Dokumente
Alle 158 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-06-05Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-05Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-06-05Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-05Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-05Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-05Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-05Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-05-07Öffentlich
Verfahren abgeschlossen2026-05-07Nicht öffentlich
Entscheidung2026-05-07Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The patent's claimed 'criteria' must reflect natural movement patterns enabling intuitive/automatic control without deliberate switching movements, as consistently stated throughout the patent description distinguishing the invention from prior art requiring artificial activation movements

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; claim construction from skilled person's perspective

  • The accused product's 'Donkey-Kick' activation (deliberate backward kick followed by fast high-knee) constitutes a conscious, deliberate, and artificial switching movement that does not qualify as a natural prosthetic movement pattern meeting claim feature 1.2(b)

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.2 RoP (required certainty for provisional measures)

  • It cannot be excluded that the claimant had constructive knowledge of potentially infringing characteristics by early July 2025 at the latest, and therefore could have filed the application no later than mid-to-late October 2025 rather than mid-December 2025, resulting in undue delay

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP (undue delay in applying for provisional measures)

  • No rectification of parties (Rubrumsberichtigung) is warranted because the respondents themselves created ambiguity about their separate legal identities in the product packaging and user manual

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: General principles of legal representation and liability in commercial dealings
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The claimant only acquired complete knowledge of the infringement facts on 4 December 2025, and the acquisition of the accused device required certified orthopaedic technicians making earlier testing impossible without elaborate deception

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP

  • The accused product implements feature 1.2(b) because an IF-function comparing parameters against threshold values sequentially constitutes 'criteria' under the claim, and there are multiple criteria because there are multiple special functions (stair descent, stumble protection, etc.)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Claim construction under Art. 69 EPC

  • For subsequent steps of alternating stair climbing, the activation movements become less unusual and could constitute natural prosthetic movement

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Claim construction and infringement analysis under R. 211.2 RoP