UPC CFI 213/2025
18. März 2025·EP2892442 · SURGICAL, TORQUE-TRANSMITTING INSTRUMENT INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TOOL
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Aesculap AGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Miriam Kiefer-Kather Augenstein
- Carsten Plaga-Kather Augenstein
- Christoph Heringlake-Kather Augenstein
- Michael Wegerermitwirkend-Winter Brandl
Beklagte - Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Mechanical engineeringMachine tools
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 10. Juni 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 10. Juli 2025
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Mojca Mlakar | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Jule Schumacher | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Max Tilmann | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Aesculap AG (4 Verfahren)·Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (6 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2025
- 2025-07-10Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Aesculap AG a preliminary injunction against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) based on EP 2 892 442 B1 (surgical instrument), with the court proceeding on the merits despite the defendant's non-appearance at the oral hearing; the defendant's general denial without substantive engagement was deemed inadequate.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Preliminary injunction
- Non-appearance of defendant at oral hearing (R. 116 RoP)
- Burden of denial (R. 171(2) RoP)
- Patent infringement (surgical instrument)
- 2025-06-23
Zusammenfassung: Procedural order of Düsseldorf Local Division (23 June 2025) providing preliminary guidance on the claim feature breakdown for EP 2 892 442 in preparation for the oral hearing of 1 July 2025 in an infringement action brought by Aesculap AG against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Oral hearing preparation
- Claim feature breakdown
- R. 9 RoP preliminary guidance
- 2025-05-01
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order appointing a technically qualified judge (TQJ) under Art. 8(5) UPCA and Rule 34 RoP for the preliminary injunction proceedings in Aesculap AG's action against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Technically qualified judge appointment Art. 8(5) UPCA
- Preliminary injunction
- Patent validity assessment
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-07-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-30 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Androhung Zwangsgeld | 2025-07-30 | Öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-07-24 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2025-07-10 Order UPC - machine translation | 2025-07-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2025-07-23 Antrag Aesculap_Auslandszustellung 183 ZPO_signed | 2025-07-23 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme | 2025-07-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-07-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| 2025-07-22 Antrag Zwangsgeld Aesculap | 2025-07-22 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-07-21 | Nicht öffentlich |
Aesculap AG obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for infringement of EP 2 892 442 B1 (surgical torque-transmitting instrument) covering Germany and France. The decision establishes two important procedural principles: where a defendant notifies non-appearance at the oral hearing in PI proceedings, the Court proceeds to a full merits decision rather than a default judgment; and a defendant that fails to specifically rebut individual factual allegations supported by concrete evidence will be treated as having conceded them under R. 171.2 RoP.
Defendant's failure to appear at oral hearing despite giving advance notice means Court proceeds on merits as if defendant were present, not restricted to default judgment
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 116 RoP; R. 210.3 RoPHinweis: Court held that where defendant informs registry it will not appear, it is treated as relying only on its written submissions and the Court decides on the merits in PI proceedings.
General denial of infringement allegations without substantive engagement, where applicant has provided specific factual basis, does not constitute effective contest under R. 171.2 RoP
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 171.2 RoPHinweis: Court held that where an applicant substantiates infringement with specific facts, the defendant must specifically dispute each allegation; mere statements about burden of proof result in the factual allegations being deemed undisputed.
Infringement of EP 2 892 442 B1 (surgical torque-transmitting instrument) by defendant's products in Germany and France
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: EP2892442B1Hinweis: Preliminary injunction granted against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH in Germany and France with penalty payments up to EUR 20,000 per day for internet offers.
Remaining aspects of application (not specified in available excerpt)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCABegründung: Part of the provisional measures application was rejected; specific grounds not captured in the available excerpt.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The injunction order reproduces the technical claim features of EP 2 892 442 B1 in German, covering the torque-transmitting tool with functional sections for torque transmission, axial locking, and insertion aid arranged in specified axial relationship. No specific disputed claim terms are identified in the available excerpt.