UPC CFI 213/2025
Mar 18, 2025·EP2892442 · SURGICAL, TORQUE-TRANSMITTING INSTRUMENT INCLUDING ASSOCIATED TOOL
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Aesculap AGOperating co.
Representatives- Miriam Kiefer-Kather Augenstein
- Carsten Plaga-Kather Augenstein
- Christoph Heringlake-Kather Augenstein
- Michael Wegerersupporting-Winter Brandl
Respondents - Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Mechanical engineeringMachine tools
- Language
- German
- First decided
- Jun 10, 2025
- Last decision
- Jul 10, 2025
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Ronny Thomas | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Mojca Mlakar | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Jule Schumacher | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Max Tilmann | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Aesculap AG (4 cases)·Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) (6 cases)
This dispute contains 3 other proceedings
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025
- 2025-07-10Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted Aesculap AG a preliminary injunction against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) based on EP 2 892 442 B1 (surgical instrument), with the court proceeding on the merits despite the defendant's non-appearance at the oral hearing; the defendant's general denial without substantive engagement was deemed inadequate.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Preliminary injunction
- Non-appearance of defendant at oral hearing (R. 116 RoP)
- Burden of denial (R. 171(2) RoP)
- Patent infringement (surgical instrument)
- 2025-06-23
Summary: Procedural order of Düsseldorf Local Division (23 June 2025) providing preliminary guidance on the claim feature breakdown for EP 2 892 442 in preparation for the oral hearing of 1 July 2025 in an infringement action brought by Aesculap AG against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Oral hearing preparation
- Claim feature breakdown
- R. 9 RoP preliminary guidance
- 2025-05-01
Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order appointing a technically qualified judge (TQJ) under Art. 8(5) UPCA and Rule 34 RoP for the preliminary injunction proceedings in Aesculap AG's action against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Technically qualified judge appointment Art. 8(5) UPCA
- Preliminary injunction
- Patent validity assessment
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-07-30 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-07-30 | Not public |
| Androhung Zwangsgeld | 2025-07-30 | Public |
| Receipt | 2025-07-24 | Not public |
| 2025-07-10 Order UPC - machine translation | 2025-07-23 | Not public |
| 2025-07-23 Antrag Aesculap_Auslandszustellung 183 ZPO_signed | 2025-07-23 | Not public |
| Gelegenheit zur Stellungnahme | 2025-07-22 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-07-22 | Not public |
| 2025-07-22 Antrag Zwangsgeld Aesculap | 2025-07-22 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-07-21 | Not public |
Aesculap AG obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH (Europe) for infringement of EP 2 892 442 B1 (surgical torque-transmitting instrument) covering Germany and France. The decision establishes two important procedural principles: where a defendant notifies non-appearance at the oral hearing in PI proceedings, the Court proceeds to a full merits decision rather than a default judgment; and a defendant that fails to specifically rebut individual factual allegations supported by concrete evidence will be treated as having conceded them under R. 171.2 RoP.
Defendant's failure to appear at oral hearing despite giving advance notice means Court proceeds on merits as if defendant were present, not restricted to default judgment
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 116 RoP; R. 210.3 RoPNote: Court held that where defendant informs registry it will not appear, it is treated as relying only on its written submissions and the Court decides on the merits in PI proceedings.
General denial of infringement allegations without substantive engagement, where applicant has provided specific factual basis, does not constitute effective contest under R. 171.2 RoP
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 171.2 RoPNote: Court held that where an applicant substantiates infringement with specific facts, the defendant must specifically dispute each allegation; mere statements about burden of proof result in the factual allegations being deemed undisputed.
Infringement of EP 2 892 442 B1 (surgical torque-transmitting instrument) by defendant's products in Germany and France
ClaimantLegal basis: EP2892442B1Note: Preliminary injunction granted against Shanghai International Holding Corporation GmbH in Germany and France with penalty payments up to EUR 20,000 per day for internet offers.
Remaining aspects of application (not specified in available excerpt)
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCAReason: Part of the provisional measures application was rejected; specific grounds not captured in the available excerpt.
Browse other cases on this principle.
The injunction order reproduces the technical claim features of EP 2 892 442 B1 in German, covering the torque-transmitting tool with functional sections for torque transmission, axial locking, and insertion aid arranged in specified axial relationship. No specific disputed claim terms are identified in the available excerpt.