UPClytics
DEEN
AnmeldenTesten
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 628/2024

28. Okt. 2024·EP2129425 · EMBOLIC PROTECTION DEVICE

Folgen
Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed (Keine Verletzung)
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter
Beklagte
Vertreter
Division
Munich LD
Richter
Technologie
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
13. Jan. 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.
Verletzung festgestelltMedian Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung
Gesamt-UPC53% (62/117)124
Munich LDGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Matthias ZigannGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Tobias PichlmaierGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Petri RinkinenGesperrtGesperrt
Richter Elisabetta PapaGesperrtGesperrt

Vor dem UPC: Emboline, Inc. (6 Verfahren)·AorticLab srl (6 Verfahren)

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

Dieser Streit umfasst 5 weitere Verfahren

UPC CoA 123/2026·UPC CoA 40/2026·UPC CoA 393/2025·UPC CFI 125/2025·UPC APP 8962/2025

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

Weitere Verfahren: Munich LD·2024

Entscheidungen
  • 2026-01-13
    Infringement ActionÖffentlich

    Zusammenfassung: Final decision on the merits in infringement action by Emboline, Inc. against AorticLab srl (EP 2 129 425, medical device). Court dismissed the infringement action finding the patent not infringed. The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was conditional (dependent on a finding of infringement), and since no infringement was found, no decision was made on the counterclaim. Both parties bear their own costs. Key headnotes: infringement not excluded by normal non-infringing operation if patent-compliant use remains possible; irregular use of a medical device in line with professional practice can constitute infringement; conditional counterclaim limited in scope (Rule 263.3 RoP).

    Rechtsfragen anzeigen (5)
    • Infringement of medical device patent
    • Normal non-infringing operation not excluding infringement
    • Conditional counterclaim for revocation (Rule 263.3 RoP)
    • Intra-procedural condition for counterclaim decision
    • Costs where no decision on counterclaim (Art. 69(3) UPCA)
Dokumente
Alle 130 Dokumente anzeigen
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Other Documents2026-07-21Nicht öffentlich
Mitteilung2026-07-03Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-06-24Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-24Nicht öffentlich
Application document Defendant2026-06-24Nicht öffentlich
Other Documents2026-05-11Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Application document Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Note2026-02-26Nicht öffentlich
Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

Emboline Inc. sued AorticLab srl for infringement of EP 2 129 425 B1 (an embolic protection device for use during cardiac procedures). The Munich Local Division dismissed the infringement action, finding the accused device is normally operated in a non-infringing mode and no irregular patent-compliant use consistent with professional medical practice was shown; AorticLab's conditional counterclaim (dependent on a finding of infringement) was not decided because the triggering condition did not arise, and both parties bore their own costs.

Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • AorticLab's embolic protection device does not use the patented teaching of EP 2 129 425 in its normal operation

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; claim construction; direct infringement

    Hinweis: Munich Local Division dismissed the infringement action, finding the device is normally operated in a non-infringing manner and that no patent-compliant use consistent with professional medical practice was demonstrated.

  • Conditional counterclaim (dependent on finding of infringement) is procedurally valid and limits the court's scope of decision

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 263.3 RoP; Art. 76(1) UPCA

    Hinweis: Court confirmed that an unconditional-to-conditional transition of a counterclaim constitutes a limitation under R. 263.3 RoP, and that since the condition (infringement finding) did not occur, no decision on the counterclaim was required.

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

  • AorticLab's device infringes EP 2 129 425 because irregular patent-compliant use by medical professionals constitutes infringement

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25 UPCA; Headnote 1

    Begründung: Patent infringement is not excluded merely because normal operation is non-infringing, BUT in the medical device context irregular patent-compliant use only constitutes infringement if in line with professional practice and recognised rules of medical science — claimant failed to demonstrate this.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze
In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.
Patent infringement not excluded by fact device normally operates non-infringingly, as long as patent-compliant use remains possibleIn medical devices, irregular patent-compliant use constitutes infringement only if consistent with professional practice and recognised medical science rulesConditional counterclaim dependent on intra-procedural event (infringement finding) is procedurally valid and limits court's mandate (R. 263.3 RoP; Art. 76(1) UPCA)If condition for counterclaim decision does not occur, counterclaimant bears costs for counterclaim as unnecessary costs (Art. 69(3) UPCA)Both parties bear their own costs where claimant fails on infringement and counterclaimant's conditional counterclaim is not decided

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

The court addressed the scope of EP 2 129 425 in relation to the AorticLab embolic protection device. The key question was whether an irregular but technically patent-compliant use mode of the device (not its normal operating mode) could constitute infringement. The court held that in the medical device context such use must align with professional practice and recognised medical science — a requirement the claimant failed to satisfy.