UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1928/2025

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
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
German
First decided
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)·Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH (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 1927/2025

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 against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH and MedEnvoy Global BV concerning patent EP 3 001 984 B1. The court found that infringement could not be established with the required certainty because the accused product's stair-climbing mode is triggered by an artificial 'donkey-kick' movement rather than natural walking motions as required by the patent claim. Additionally, the court could not exclude that Ottobock delayed unreasonably in bringing the application, having likely been aware of potential infringement since at least early July 2025 but not filing until December 2025.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Whether the accused product (Knreuro microprocessor knee joint) infringes claim 1 of EP 3 001 984 B1 (indirect/contributory infringement)
    • Claim construction of 'criteria' (Kriterien) aggregating multiple parameters for comparison versus sequential threshold comparisons of individual parameters
    • Whether the stair-ascending mode of the accused product is triggered by natural/intuitive prosthetic movement or by artificial deliberate activation movements ('Donkey-Kick')
    • Unreasonable delay (unangemessenes Zuwarten) under R. 211.4 RoP — whether claimant knew or should have known of potential infringement significantly earlier than the filing date
    • Whether MedEnvoy Global BV as EU regulatory representative (MDR Art. 11) qualifies as an intermediary (Mittelsperson) under Art. 63(1), 62(1) UPCA
    • Admissibility of late submissions by respondents pursuant to R. 9.1, 209.1(a) RoP
Documents
Show all 167 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-06-08Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-08Not public
Application Respondent2026-06-08Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-08Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-08Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-08Not public
Exhibit Respondent2026-06-08Not 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 allowing intuitive, automatic control — not artificial activation movements — based on the patent description's explicit distinction from prior art requiring conscious switching movements

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 69 EPC and Protocol on Interpretation; claim construction from perspective of skilled person in context of entire patent specification

  • The accused product's stair-climbing mode is triggered by the 'Donkey-Kick' — a deliberate, conspicuous backward and forward hip movement — which constitutes an artificial activation movement, not a natural gait parameter, so feature 1.2b) is not met

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.2 RoP — infringement not established with requisite certainty

  • Claimant could not exclude unreasonable delay: the accused product was exhibited at US trade fairs in autumn 2024/early 2025 and marketed in European trade press from February 2025, such that claimant should have known of potential infringement no later than early July 2025, but did not file until December 2025

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • An IF-function with three parameters compared sequentially via AND-logic and combined threshold checks constitutes 'criteria aggregating multiple parameters' within the meaning of feature 1.2b)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Claim construction of 'Kriterien' under Art. 69 EPC

  • The stair-climbing mode for subsequent steps (beyond the initial step) uses movements comparable to natural prosthetic gait and thus satisfies feature 1.2b)

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.2 RoP

  • Claimant acted with sufficient urgency by only learning of potential infringement upon purchasing the device in October 2025 and conducting gait-lab tests in November 2025 before filing in December 2025

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP