UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 85/2026

27. Mai 2026·EP2077811: CLAY-BASED HEMOSTATIC AGENTS AND DEVICES FOR THE DELIVERY THEREOF

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Case Closed
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Ulrich Blumenröder (Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Alexander Reetz (Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Sprache
English
Erste Entscheidung
10. Juni 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-06-10
    BeweisRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant's (Speed Care Mineral GmbH) request for a discretionary review of the Local Division Hamburg's determination of the value in dispute of the Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000. The Court held that the LD's decision was not manifestly incorrect, as the Guidelines on value in dispute are not mandatory and the LD had discretion to set the revocation counterclaim value equal to the infringement action value given the patent's short remaining duration and other circumstances. No fundamental legal question was raised that would justify discretionary review.

    Rechtsfragen:Admissibility of discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP where CFI fails to rule within 15-day periodWhether absence of CFI decision within 15-day period of R. 220.3 RoP constitutes implied refusal of leave to appealWhether determination of value in dispute is a procedural decision subject to R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoPWhether setting value in dispute of counterclaim for revocation equal to (not 150% of) infringement action value is manifestly incorrectDiscretionary nature of Administrative Committee Guidelines on value in dispute (R. 370.6 RoP)
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-06-10Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-06-10Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-06-10Öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-06-02Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-06-02Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-06-02Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-01Nicht öffentlich
Further pleadings2026-06-01Nicht öffentlich
Formal Deficiency found2026-05-29Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-05-27Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The absence of a CFI decision within the 15-day period of R. 220.3 RoP should be regarded as an implied refusal, making the request for discretionary review admissible

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP

  • The determination of value in dispute is a procedural decision to which R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoP apply, even when part of a final decision

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.2, R. 220.3 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The LD's determination of value in dispute of the Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000 (equal to infringement action, not 150% thereof) is manifestly incorrect given the Guidelines and LD practice

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 370.6 RoP; Administrative Committee Guidelines Section 2.b)(2)(ii)

  • The determination of value in dispute raises a fundamental legal question requiring review for consistent application of the Rules of Procedure

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 220.3 RoP