UPC CFI 307/2025
2. Apr. 2025·EP2892442 · SURGICAL, TORQUE-TRANSMITTING INSTRUMENT INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TOOL
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Patent verletzt)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Aesculap AGUnternehmen
Vertreter- Miriam Kiefer-Kather Augenstein
- Carsten Plaga-Kather Augenstein
- Christoph Heringlake-Kather Augenstein
- Michael Wegerermitwirkend-Winter Brandl
Beklagte- Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. LtdUnternehmen
- Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe)Unternehmen
Vertreter- Philippa Eke-IK-Ip Ltd
- Ralph Nack-Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
- Douglas Cole-IK-Ip Ltd
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Mechanical engineeringMachine tools
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 4. Dez. 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 16. Okt. 2026
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 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 Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd (1 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2025
- 2026-10-16InfringementÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division rejects the claimant's R. 353 RoP request to correct the operative part and paragraphs 125-126 of its decision of 1 September 2026 (changing a suspensive condition to a condition subsequent for UK-related orders). The request is admissible but unfounded because the decision contains no clerical, arithmetic or obvious error.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- R. 353 RoP rectification of a decision
- Condition subsequent (R. 118.2 RoP) for UK-related injunction
- Obvious error vs substantive correction
- 2026-09-01InfringementÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division decision (Panel 1, 1 Sep 2026) in Aesculap AG v Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (EP 2 892 442 B1, surgical cutting tools 'Bojin' drill bits): the court finds the attacked embodiments realise claims 1 and 6, holds that the Hamburg-seated defendant 2, as the Chinese manufacturer's EU authorised representative under Art. 11 MDR, is not itself an infringer but an intermediary under Art. 63(1) s.2 UPCA, and orders it to cease providing those services for the offering, placing on the market, use or import of the tools in Germany, France and the United Kingdom (UK relief conditional on the UK part not being invalidated), plus information for Germany and France and penalty payments; the further requests (recall, destruction, damages, UK information) are dismissed; costs split 50/50; cost ceiling EUR 112,000; no stay pending the CJEU referral in Dyson v Dreame. The action against defendants 1 and 3 (Shanghai Bojin Medical Instrument Co. Ltd, Shanghai Bojin Electric Instrument & Device Co., Ltd) ended by a settlement confirmed on 27 Aug 2026.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
- liability of an EU authorised representative (Art. 11 MDR) as intermediary under Art. 63(1) s.2 UPCA, not as infringer
- long-arm jurisdiction over the United Kingdom part (BSH v Electrolux line; relief conditional on UK validity)
- R. 116.3 RoP
- no stay pending the CJEU referral in Dyson v Dreame (R. 295(m) RoP)
- settlement with the Chinese manufacturer defendants confirmed 27 Aug 2026
- 2026-08-27InfringementÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: Duesseldorf Local Division decision confirming a settlement under R.365(1) sentence 2 RoP between the claimant and defendants 1 and 3, whose terms are confidential and redacted from the published decision. Each of those parties bears its own costs with no reimbursement; the decision is provisionally enforceable without security. PARTIAL: the proceedings are terminated only as between the claimant and defendants 1 and 3, and EXPRESSLY CONTINUE against defendant 2. [operative 'ANORDNUNG', items I-V]
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- confirmation of a settlement under R.365(1) RoP
- confidentiality of settlement terms under R.365(2) RoP
- costs follow the parties' agreement
- partial termination leaving proceedings on foot against a non-settling defendant
- 2025-12-04
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order in the Aesculap v. Shanghai Bojin medical instrument case, scheduling the oral hearing and addressing requests for claim extension (R. 263), addition of a party (R. 305), and reinstatement in prior status (R. 320).
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- R. 28 RoP scheduling of oral hearing
- R. 263 RoP amendment of claim
- R. 305 RoP addition of party
- R. 320 RoP reinstatement in prior status
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Mitteilung | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Veröffentlichung der Anordnung | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-10-16 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-10-16 | Öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-10-08 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-10-07 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-10-07 | Öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-10-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
The attacked 'Bojin' drill bits realise claims 1 and 6 of EP 2 892 442 (Zweiflach and Eindrehhilfe features)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; claim constructionDefendant 2, as EU authorised representative under Art. 11 MDR, makes a decisive contribution to placing the products on the market and can be enjoined as an intermediary, also for the United Kingdom
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 63(1) s.2 UPCA; Art. 71b Brussels Ia
Defendant 2 itself imports and distributes the products and is a (joint) infringer liable for information, recall, destruction and damages, including under UK law
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; Section 60 Patents Act 1977The proceedings should be stayed pending the CJEU referral in Dyson v Dreame
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 295(m), 266.5 RoP