UPClytics
View all cases

UPC CFI 155/2025

Feb 28, 2025·EP3685783 Unitary patent · ENDOLUMINAL LASER ABLATION DEVICE FOR TREATING VEINS

Case details
Status
Oral Phase
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
German
First decided
Apr 2, 2026
EPO Opposition
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 revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Mojca MlakarLockedLocked
Judge Torsten Duhme—Locked

At the UPC: S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International (6 cases)·biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG (7 cases)

This 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

UPC CFI 292/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-02
    Infringement 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
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-07-13Public
Note2026-04-16Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-04-02Not public
Receipt2026-02-09Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-09Not public
Other document Claimant2026-02-09Not public
Receipt2026-01-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-26Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2026-01-26Not public
Other document Claimant2026-01-26Not public