UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CoA 898/2025

31. Okt. 2025·EP3421081 +1 more: A SYSTEM FOR NEUROMODULATION

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Oral Phase
Verfahrensart
Berufung
Kategorie
Hauptberufung
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Matthias Traut (Peterreins Schley)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Jan Zecher (Fish & Richardson P.C.)
Division
Court of Appeal
Richter
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
27. März 2026
Ansprüche
Streitig1, 7, 9
Nicht verletztcombination of claims 1+7+9 (non-registered version)
Hinweise: The court assessed a non-registered combination of claims 1, 7, and 9 (former auxiliary request 8 of first instance, now unconditional main request on appeal). No finding on validity was made. The court did not reach the question of legal validity of the combination as it found no sufficient certainty of infringement.
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-03-27
    PI abgelehntBerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the Munich Local Division's order of 17 October 2025, refusing to grant a preliminary injunction. The court found that neither direct nor indirect infringement of EP 3 421 081 (in the claimed non-registered claim combination) could be established with sufficient certainty, because the accused product (ExaStim) is not pre-programmed at delivery and the user manuals do not instruct the required claim-conforming programming. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's provisional costs of EUR 56,000.

    Rechtsfragen:Admissibility of enforcing a patent in a non-registered (amended) claim version in preliminary injunction proceedingsAdmissibility of auxiliary requests in appeal proceedings in PI cases (R. 222 RoP)Scope of R. 211.2 RoP: whether 'patent in question' refers only to the granted claim versionDirect infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA: whether accused product meets all claim features at time of deliveryIndirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA: subjective element (intended use / Verwendungsbestimmung)Whether user manuals establish the required intended use for indirect infringementAttribution of customer programming acts to defendant ('verlängerte Werkbank')Costs: provisional costs award at 50% of the applicable ceiling under R. 150/152 RoP
  • 2026-03-27
    PI abgelehntBerufungsentscheidungAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the Local Division Munich's refusal to grant provisional measures. The Court held that neither direct nor indirect infringement of EP 3 421 081 in the asserted claim version (a combination of claims 1, 7, and 9) was sufficiently certain, as the contested embodiment (ExaStim) was not shown to be programmed according to the claim at delivery, and the user manuals did not establish the required intended use for indirect infringement. The applicant was ordered to pay the defendant's provisional costs of EUR 56,000.

    Rechtsfragen:admissibility of asserting unregistered/non-granted claim version in provisional measures proceedingsadmissibility of auxiliary requests in appeal proceedings for provisional measures (R. 222 RoP)interpretation of R. 211.2 RoP — 'patent in question' vs 'granted version'direct infringement — delivery state of contested embodiment without pre-programmed patternsindirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA — subjective requirement of intended usedetermination of intended use from objective circumstances including user manuals'extended workbench' doctrine for attributing customer acts to defendantadmissibility of Spanish-language user manual introduced late on appealcosts ceiling and interim award of costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA, R. 150(2) RoP)
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-03-27Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-03-27Öffentlich
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-03-06Nicht öffentlich
Hearing recording reference document2026-03-06Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-13Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-13Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-02-13Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
Document Respondent2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-02-11Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-02-03Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-30Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-29Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-29Nicht öffentlich
Other document Respondent2026-01-29Nicht öffentlich
Other document Respondent2026-01-29Nicht öffentlich
Other document Respondent2026-01-29Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Other document Respondent2026-01-23Nicht öffentlich
action.communication.general2026-01-23Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-01-21Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-01-21Nicht öffentlich
Other document Appellant2026-01-21Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-01-15Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-01-15Nicht öffentlich
action.summons.oralHearing2026-01-15Nicht öffentlich
Summons2026-01-15Öffentlich
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-09Nicht öffentlich
Order2026-01-09Öffentlich
Cover sheet2025-11-25Nicht öffentlich
Statement of Response2025-11-25Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2025-11-25Nicht öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-11Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2025-10-31Nicht öffentlich
Fee2025-10-31Nicht öffentlich
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2025-10-31Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2025-10-31Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2025-10-31Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • A patent may be enforced in a non-registered (amended) claim version in preliminary injunction proceedings; R. 211.2 RoP does not restrict enforcement to the granted claim version

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.2 RoP; Art. 76(1) UPCA

  • Auxiliary requests are generally admissible in PI appeal proceedings under R. 222 RoP, subject to case-specific assessment

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 222.1, 222.2, 263 RoP; Art. 73(3), 76(1) UPCA

  • The objective requirements of Art. 26 UPCA for indirect infringement are satisfied for both the ExaStim system and the ReCure electrode pad

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 26(1) UPCA
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA: the accused product (ExaStim) directly embodies all claim features at time of offer/delivery

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Attribution of customer programming acts to defendant ('verlängerte Werkbank') establishing direct infringement

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Indirect infringement: the user manuals establish the required intended use (Verwendungsbestimmung) for claim-conforming programming under Art. 26 UPCA

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 26 UPCA

  • Enforcing only the granted claim version in PI proceedings is mandatory; a non-registered claim combination is inadmissible

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.2, R. 30 RoP

  • The appeal claim (former auxiliary request 8 as unconditional main request) constitutes a new, late-filed request that should be rejected

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 222.2 RoP