UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 338/2023

27. Sept. 2023·EP4074373 Einheitspatent · MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Patent geändert aufrechterhalten)
Verfahrensart
Nichtigkeit
Kategorie
Hauptnichtigkeitsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Paris CD
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
26. Dez. 2024
EPA-Einspruch
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.
Patent nichtigMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC37% (34/91)124
Paris CDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Paolo CatallozziGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Tatyana ZhilovaGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Kerstin RoselingerGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Advanced Bionics AG (12 Verfahren)·MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH (5 Verfahren)

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 4 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 175/2025·UPC CoA 177/2025·UPC CFI 69/2025·UPC CFI 72/2025

10 weitere Beklagte zum selben oder einem verwandten Patent

UPC CFI 688/2025·UPC CFI 514/2025·UPC CoA 176/2025·UPC CoA 178/2025·UPC CFI 65/2025 und 5 weitere

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

Weitere Verfahren: Paris CD·2023

Entscheidungen
  • 2024-12-26
    Revocation ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: The Paris Central Division dismissed Advanced Bionics' revocation actions (main and counterclaims) against MED-EL's EP 4 074 373 B1 (MRI-safe disk magnet for cochlear implants), maintaining the patent in the amended version of Auxiliary Request 0a after overcoming added-matter objections; costs were allocated 70% to the claimants and 30% to the defendant.

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • revocation for insufficiency of disclosure
    • added matter Art. 123(2) EPC
    • lack of inventive step
    • inventor as witness Art. 181 RoP
    • expedited issue ordering on most accessible ground
Dokumente
Alle 352 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-04-22Nicht öffentlich
procedural order2025-04-22Öffentlich
procedural order (ORD_64519_2024)2025-04-10Nicht öffentlich
procedural order2025-04-10Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-04-10Nicht öffentlich
procedural order2025-04-10Öffentlich
Final order - 12056-2025 - 28.03.20252025-03-28Nicht öffentlich
procedural order2025-03-28Öffentlich
Outcome of the Order2025-03-28Nicht öffentlich
procedural order2025-03-28Öffentlich
Abdeckung: Teilweise.Begründung teilweise extrahiert — einige Abschnitte können unvollständig sein.
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Advanced Bionics challenged MED-EL's EP 4 074 373 (MRI-safe disk magnet for cochlear and other implants) by revocation action and counterclaim before the Paris Central Division. The court found the patent as granted contained added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC but maintained the patent in amended form (Auxiliary Request 0a), which restricted the claims to specific implant types with a rotatable disc-shaped attachment magnet; insufficiency and inventive-step attacks against the amended claims were also rejected. Costs were allocated 70% to Advanced Bionics and 30% to MED-EL.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Patent valid as amended by Auxiliary Request 0a: claim 1 restricted to cochlear/middle ear/vestibular/laryngeal pacemaker implant systems with a rotatable disc-shaped attachment magnet in the implant coil housing

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 138 EPC

    Hinweis: The added-matter objection applicable to the patent as granted was overcome by Auxiliary Request 0a; insufficiency and lack of inventive step were also not proven.

  • Insufficiency of disclosure not proven

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 83 EPC; Art. 138(1)(b) EPC

    Hinweis: Panel found the disclosure sufficient even applying a strict reading.

  • Lack of inventive step of Auxiliary Request 0a not proven

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 56 EPC

    Hinweis: Advanced Bionics' inventive step attack against the amended claim was rejected.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Patent as granted is invalid for added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC)

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Begründung: The added-matter objection was found valid for the patent as granted but overcome by the amendment in Auxiliary Request 0a; the panel resolved the case on the basis of the amended claim.

  • Inventor should be heard as a witness or expert

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 181(1) RoP

    Begründung: The inventor may have a direct interest in the outcome and does not meet the R.181(1)(a)(b) requirements of impartiality, objectivity and independence for witnesses or experts.

  • Invalidity on grounds of insufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step against Auxiliary Request 0a

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Arts. 83, 56 EPC

    Begründung: Both grounds found not proven against the amended claims.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Court may decide the case by resolving a logically subordinate issue first if that issue is more easily determinable (procedural efficiency principle)Inventor is not eligible to serve as witness or expert due to potential direct interest in outcome (R.181(1) RoP requirements of impartiality, objectivity and independence)Added matter overcome by narrowing amendment; remaining invalidity grounds then assessed against amended claimCosts partially attributable to patentee where patent required amendment: here 70% to claimants / 30% to defendant

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The amended Claim 1 (Auxiliary Request 0a) requires: a planar implant coil housing containing a signal receiver coil; a rotatable first attachment magnet within the coil housing plane with a magnetic dipole parallel to the plane; and that the implant system is specifically one of a cochlear, middle ear, vestibular, or laryngeal pacemaker implant. The disc shape or cut-away disc shape of the magnet is also specified. These restrictions were key to overcoming the added-matter objection to the granted claims.