UPC CoA 85/2026
27. Mai 2026·EP2077811 · CLAY-BASED HEMOSTATIC AGENTS AND DEVICES FOR THE DELIVERY THEREOF
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartBerufungKategorieHauptberufung
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Speed Care Mineral GmbHUnternehmen
Vertreter- Alexander Reetz-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
Beklagte- Teleflex Life Sciences II LLCUnternehmen
Vertreter- Ulrich Blumenröder-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Richter
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 10. Juni 2026
- EPA-Einspruch
- CARL FREUDENBERG KG Patente und Marken2011-08-04
| Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 124 |
| Richter Bart van den Broek | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Speed Care Mineral GmbH (6 Verfahren)·Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC (6 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 5 weitere Verfahren
UPC CFI 235/2025·UPC CFI 157/2025·UPC CFI 701/2024·UPC CFI 685/2024·UPC CFI 1849/2026
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Court of Appeal·2026
- 2026-06-10Request for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)Öffentlich
Zusammenfassung: 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 anzeigen (5)
- Admissibility of discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP where CFI fails to rule within 15-day period
- Whether absence of CFI decision within 15-day period of R. 220.3 RoP constitutes implied refusal of leave to appeal
- Whether determination of value in dispute is a procedural decision subject to R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoP
- Whether setting value in dispute of counterclaim for revocation equal to (not 150% of) infringement action value is manifestly incorrect
- Discretionary nature of Administrative Committee Guidelines on value in dispute (R. 370.6 RoP)
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2026-06-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2026-06-10 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Final Order | 2026-06-10 | Öffentlich |
| Veröffentlichung | 2026-06-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-06-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-06-02 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Appellant | 2026-06-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Further pleadings | 2026-06-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Formal Deficiency found | 2026-05-29 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-05-27 | Nicht öffentlich |
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 RoPThe 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
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