UPC CFI 315/2024
13. Juni 2024·EP3756767 Einheitspatent · MODULAR POINT-OF-CARE DEVICES AND USES THEREOF
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase Closed (Keine Verletzung)VerfahrensartVerletzungKategorieHauptverletzungsklage
- Parteien
- KlägerVertreter
- Christof Höhne-EIP Europe LLP
- Sebastian Fuchs-EIP Europe LLP
- Matthew Blaseby-EIP Europe LLP
- Darren Smyth-EIP Europe LLP
Beklagte- bioMérieux SAUnternehmen
- bioMérieux Deutschland GmbHUnternehmen
- bioMérieux Italia S.p.A.Unternehmen
- bioMérieux Austria GmbHUnternehmen
- bioMérieux Portugal, Lda.Unternehmen
- bioMérieux Benelux BVUnternehmen
Vertreter- Benjamin Husband-Carpmaels & Ransford
- Agathe Michel-De Cazotte-Carpmaels & Ransford
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMeasurement · Analysis of biological materials
- ChemistryChemical engineering
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 26. Sept. 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 28. Jan. 2026
- EPA-Einspruch
- bioMérieux société anonyme (SA)Zulässig2025-01-31
| Verletzung festgestellt | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 53% (62/117) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Berenice Thom | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Mélanie Bessaud | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Michel Abello | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Labrador Diagnostics LLC (7 Verfahren)·bioMérieux Group (12 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 4 weitere Verfahren
UPC CoA 47/2026·UPC CoA 937/2025·UPC CFI 571/2024·CC 54050/2024
2 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Dusseldorf LD·2024
- 2026-01-28Infringement ActionÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Labrador Diagnostics' infringement action concerning EP 3 756 767 against bioMérieux entities, finding no infringement after the Central Division amended the patent claims; the court was bound by the amended claim wording and validity was no longer decisive.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (3)
- Bifurcation — Local Division bound by Central Division's amended claims
- Non-infringement of amended claims
- Claim construction (equivalence)
- 2025-09-26Procedural OrderÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order under R. 108 RoP in the infringement action by Labrador Diagnostics LLC against bioMérieux entities concerning EP 3 756 767 B1 (diagnostic testing apparatus).
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Scheduling (R. 108 RoP)
- Diagnostic testing apparatus infringement
- 2025-04-23
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division while retaining jurisdiction over the infringement action pursuant to Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA. The application to amend the patent was referred together with the counterclaim for revocation.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Bifurcation
- Referral of revocation counterclaim to Central Division
- Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA
- Application to amend patent
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2026-03-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-03-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-03-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-03-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application Respondent | 2026-03-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application Respondent | 2026-03-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2026-01-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Decision | 2026-01-28 | Öffentlich |
| Anordnung | 2026-01-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Order | 2026-01-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
Labrador Diagnostics LLC (US) sued bioMérieux SA and related entities for infringement of EP 3 756 767 B1, a patent for a modular point-of-care diagnostic testing device. After the Central Division amended the patent in parallel validity proceedings, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Labrador's infringement action, holding it was bound by the amended claim wording under which the bioMérieux products did not infringe; the question of validity was no longer decisive once non-infringement was established.
Local Division is bound by the Central Division's amended claim wording in a bifurcated case
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33 UPCA; bifurcation provisionsHinweis: Court held that once the Central Division amends the patent in the validity track, the Local Division in the infringement track must apply the new amended claims and cannot look behind them.
No infringement of amended claim 1: challenged products do not meet the amended claim features
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCAHinweis: Court dismissed the infringement action after construing the amended claims; the challenged bioMérieux products did not infringe.
Infringement by equivalence of product claim 1 (challenged embodiment I)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(1) UPCABegründung: Court left the admissibility of the doctrine of equivalents claim open as it was not decisive; non-infringement under the literal amended claim was sufficient to dismiss, and equivalence was not found.
Patent validity remains decisive for the infringement action even in a bifurcated case
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33 UPCABegründung: In a bifurcated case where no infringement is found, validity is no longer decisive for the outcome of the infringement action.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The infringement action concerned EP 3 756 767 B1 (modular point-of-care diagnostic device). Following the Central Division's amendment of the patent in bifurcated proceedings, the Local Division applied the new amended claim wording and found that bioMérieux's challenged diagnostic systems did not meet the amended claim features. The precise scope of the amended claims is not detailed in the excerpt.