UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1927/2025

Dec 10, 2025·EP3001984 · METHOD FOR CONTROLLING AN ORTHOPAEDIC JOINT

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
German
First decided
Feb 25, 2026
Last decision
May 7, 2026
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.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Peter AgergaardLockedLocked
Judge Ingo RinkenLockedLocked
Judge Simon MichelsLockedLocked

At the UPC: Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA (3 cases)·BrainPortfolio Inc. (2 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 2573/2026

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 1928/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-05-07
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Local Division Düsseldorf dismissed the application for provisional measures filed by Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. concerning alleged indirect infringement of EP 3 001 984 B1. The court found that, on summary examination, it could not determine with the required certainty that the accused product (Kneuro microprocessor knee system) actually implements the claimed method, because the 'Donkey-Kick' activation movement constitutes an artificial, deliberate switching movement incompatible with the patent's requirement of intuitive/automatic control. Additionally, the court found it could not exclude that the claimant had acted with undue delay (Zuwarten) in filing the application, further undermining the urgency required for provisional measures.

    Show the legal issues (7)
    • Indirect (contributory) infringement of method claim for controlling a prosthetic knee joint
    • Claim construction of 'criteria' under feature 1.2(b): whether criteria must reflect natural movement patterns enabling intuitive/automatic control
    • Whether the 'Donkey-Kick' activation sequence in the accused product meets the patent's requirement of parameters reflecting natural prosthetic movement
    • Undue delay (unangemessenes Zuwarten) under R. 211.4 RoP: timing of the claimant's knowledge of potential infringement
    • Urgency (Dringlichkeit) as a prerequisite for provisional measures
    • Identity of BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. as legal entities (DBA issue)
    • Jurisdiction of the Düsseldorf Local Division under Art. 32(1)(c), Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA
  • 2026-02-25
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: Düsseldorf Local Division issued a preliminary procedural order scheduling an oral hearing in the provisional measures proceedings by Ottobock against BrainPortfolio Inc. and BrainRobotics Inc. for 22 April 2026. The order set filing deadlines for the parties' written submissions in preparation for the hearing and invited parties to notify participants. This is a case management order with no substantive ruling on the merits.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Provisional measures oral hearing scheduling (R.209.1(b) RoP)
    • Case management order
Documents
Show all 158 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-06-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-05Not public
Application Respondent2026-06-05Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-05Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-05Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-05Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-05Not public
Final Order2026-05-07Public
Case closed2026-05-07Not public
Decision2026-05-07Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The patent's claimed 'criteria' must reflect natural movement patterns enabling intuitive/automatic control without deliberate switching movements, as consistently stated throughout the patent description distinguishing the invention from prior art requiring artificial activation movements

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; claim construction from skilled person's perspective

  • The accused product's 'Donkey-Kick' activation (deliberate backward kick followed by fast high-knee) constitutes a conscious, deliberate, and artificial switching movement that does not qualify as a natural prosthetic movement pattern meeting claim feature 1.2(b)

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.2 RoP (required certainty for provisional measures)

  • It cannot be excluded that the claimant had constructive knowledge of potentially infringing characteristics by early July 2025 at the latest, and therefore could have filed the application no later than mid-to-late October 2025 rather than mid-December 2025, resulting in undue delay

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP (undue delay in applying for provisional measures)

  • No rectification of parties (Rubrumsberichtigung) is warranted because the respondents themselves created ambiguity about their separate legal identities in the product packaging and user manual

    ClaimantLegal basis: General principles of legal representation and liability in commercial dealings
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The claimant only acquired complete knowledge of the infringement facts on 4 December 2025, and the acquisition of the accused device required certified orthopaedic technicians making earlier testing impossible without elaborate deception

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP

  • The accused product implements feature 1.2(b) because an IF-function comparing parameters against threshold values sequentially constitutes 'criteria' under the claim, and there are multiple criteria because there are multiple special functions (stair descent, stumble protection, etc.)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Claim construction under Art. 69 EPC

  • For subsequent steps of alternating stair climbing, the activation movements become less unusual and could constitute natural prosthetic movement

    ClaimantLegal basis: Claim construction and infringement analysis under R. 211.2 RoP