UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 1928/2025

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

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Sprache
German
Erste 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)·Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH (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 1927/2025

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 against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV concerning patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The court found that infringement could not be established with the required certainty because the accused product's stair-climbing mode is triggered by an artificial 'donkey-kick' movement rather than natural walking motions as required by the patent claim. Additionally, the court could not exclude that Ottobock delayed unreasonably in bringing the application, having likely been aware of potential infringement since at least early July 2025 but not filing until December 2025.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
    • Whether the accused product (Knreuro microprocessor knee joint) infringes claim 1 of EP 3 001 984 B1 (indirect/contributory infringement)
    • Claim construction of 'criteria' (Kriterien) aggregating multiple parameters for comparison versus sequential threshold comparisons of individual parameters
    • Whether the stair-ascending mode of the accused product is triggered by natural/intuitive prosthetic movement or by artificial deliberate activation movements ('Donkey-Kick')
    • Unreasonable delay (unangemessenes Zuwarten) under R. 211.4 RoP — whether claimant knew or should have known of potential infringement significantly earlier than the filing date
    • Whether MedEnvoy Global BV as EU regulatory representative (MDR Art. 11) qualifies as an intermediary (Mittelsperson) under Art. 63(1), 62(1) UPCA
    • Admissibility of late submissions by respondents pursuant to R. 9.1, 209.1(a) RoP
Dokumente
Alle 167 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-06-08Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-08Nicht öffentlich
Application Respondent2026-06-08Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-08Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-08Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-08Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-08Nicht 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 allowing intuitive, automatic control — not artificial activation movements — based on the patent description's explicit distinction from prior art requiring conscious switching movements

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; claim construction from perspective of skilled person in context of entire patent specification

  • The accused product's stair-climbing mode is triggered by the 'Donkey-Kick' — a deliberate, conspicuous backward and forward hip movement — which constitutes an artificial activation movement, not a natural gait parameter, so feature 1.2b) is not met

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.2 RoP — infringement not established with requisite certainty

  • Claimant could not exclude unreasonable delay: the accused product was exhibited at US trade fairs in autumn 2024/early 2025 and marketed in European trade press from February 2025, such that claimant should have known of potential infringement no later than early July 2025, but did not file until December 2025

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • An IF-function with three parameters compared sequentially via AND-logic and combined threshold checks constitutes 'criteria aggregating multiple parameters' within the meaning of feature 1.2b)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Claim construction of 'Kriterien' under Art. 69 EPC

  • The stair-climbing mode for subsequent steps (beyond the initial step) uses movements comparable to natural prosthetic gait and thus satisfies feature 1.2b)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.2 RoP

  • Claimant acted with sufficient urgency by only learning of potential infringement upon purchasing the device in October 2025 and conducting gait-lab tests in November 2025 before filing in December 2025

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP