View all cases
UPC CFI 155/2025
Feb 28, 2025·EP3685783 Unitary patent · ENDOLUMINAL LASER ABLATION DEVICE FOR TREATING VEINS
- Case details
- StatusOral PhaseActionCounterclaim for revocationCategoryCounterclaim for revocation
- Parties
- Claimants
- S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE InternationalOperating co.
- Light Guide Optics Germany GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Jörg Schmidt-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Division
- Munich LD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Apr 2, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- Light Guide Optics Germany GmbHAdmissible2024-07-19
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
| Patent revoked | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 37% (34/91) | 124 |
| Munich LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Matthias Zigann | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Tobias Pichlmaier | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Mojca Mlakar | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Torsten Duhme | — | Locked |
At the UPC: S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International (6 cases)·biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG (7 cases)
Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patentThis dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CFI 256/2025·UPC CFI 714/2024·UPC CoA 540/2024·UPC CFI 486/2024·UPC APP 67626/2024
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Decisions
- 2026-04-02Infringement ActionPublic
Summary: The court rejected the defendants' application to stay the proceedings and ordered the appointment of a court-appointed expert under Rule 185 RoP to resolve disputed technical questions about the accused embodiment. The court found the patent in its granted form likely invalid but potentially valid in the form of auxiliary request 10B, and deferred any substantive ruling pending the expert's findings.
Show the legal issues (7)
- Stay of proceedings under Rule 295(a) RoP pending EPO opposition proceedings
- Whether revocation by EPO Opposition Division between UPC oral hearing and pronouncement date requires mandatory stay
- Admissibility of auxiliary requests filed in response to EPO preliminary opinion
- Added subject-matter (Art. 76(1), 123(2) EPC) in granted claim 1 - omission of 'core' in fusing feature
- Appointment of court expert under Rule 185 RoP to resolve conflicting technical evidence on infringement
- Lateral emission mechanism (refraction vs. total internal reflection) in helical grooves of accused product
- Whether cap of accused product is fused to optical fiber core or cladding
Documents
Show all 244 documents| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Order | 2026-07-13 | Public |
| Note | 2026-04-16 | Not public |
| Hearing recording reference document | 2026-04-02 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-02-09 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-02-09 | Not public |
| Other document Claimant | 2026-02-09 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-01-26 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-01-26 | Not public |
| Exhibit document Claimant | 2026-01-26 | Not public |
| Other document Claimant | 2026-01-26 | Not public |