UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 315/2024

Jun 13, 2024·EP3756767 Unitary patent · MODULAR POINT-OF-CARE DEVICES AND USES THEREOF

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Measurement · Analysis of biological materials
  • Chemistry
    Chemical engineering
Language
English
First decided
Sep 26, 2025
Last decision
Jan 28, 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.
Infringement foundMedian days to first decision
All UPC53% (62/117)124
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge Berenice ThomLockedLocked
Judge Mélanie BessaudLockedLocked
Judge Michel AbelloLockedLocked

At the UPC: Labrador Diagnostics LLC (7 cases)·bioMérieux Group (12 cases)

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

This dispute contains 4 other proceedings

UPC CoA 47/2026·UPC CoA 937/2025·UPC CFI 571/2024·CC 54050/2024

2 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CoA 938/2025·UPC CFI 497/2024

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-01-28
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Labrador Diagnostics' infringement action concerning EP 3 756 767 against bioMérieux entities, finding no infringement after the Central Division amended the patent claims; the court was bound by the amended claim wording and validity was no longer decisive.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Bifurcation — Local Division bound by Central Division's amended claims
    • Non-infringement of amended claims
    • Claim construction (equivalence)
  • 2025-09-26
    Procedural OrderPublic

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a procedural order under R. 108 RoP in the infringement action by Labrador Diagnostics LLC against bioMérieux entities concerning EP 3 756 767 B1 (diagnostic testing apparatus).

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Scheduling (R. 108 RoP)
    • Diagnostic testing apparatus infringement
  • 2025-04-23
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division referred the counterclaim for revocation to the Milan Central Division while retaining jurisdiction over the infringement action pursuant to Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA. The application to amend the patent was referred together with the counterclaim for revocation.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Bifurcation
    • Referral of revocation counterclaim to Central Division
    • Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA
    • Application to amend patent
Documents
Show all 451 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-03-02Not public
Communication2026-03-02Not public
Receipt2026-03-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-02Not public
Application Respondent2026-03-02Not public
Application Respondent2026-03-02Not public
Decision2026-01-28Not public
Decision2026-01-28Public
Order2026-01-10Not public
Order2026-01-10Not public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Labrador Diagnostics LLC (US) sued bioMérieux SA and related entities for infringement of EP 3 756 767 B1, a patent for a modular point-of-care diagnostic testing device. After the Central Division amended the patent in parallel validity proceedings, the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Labrador's infringement action, holding it was bound by the amended claim wording under which the bioMérieux products did not infringe; the question of validity was no longer decisive once non-infringement was established.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Local Division is bound by the Central Division's amended claim wording in a bifurcated case

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 33 UPCA; bifurcation provisions

    Note: Court held that once the Central Division amends the patent in the validity track, the Local Division in the infringement track must apply the new amended claims and cannot look behind them.

  • No infringement of amended claim 1: challenged products do not meet the amended claim features

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA

    Note: Court dismissed the infringement action after construing the amended claims; the challenged bioMérieux products did not infringe.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Infringement by equivalence of product claim 1 (challenged embodiment I)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(1) UPCA

    Reason: Court left the admissibility of the doctrine of equivalents claim open as it was not decisive; non-infringement under the literal amended claim was sufficient to dismiss, and equivalence was not found.

  • Patent validity remains decisive for the infringement action even in a bifurcated case

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 33 UPCA

    Reason: In a bifurcated case where no infringement is found, validity is no longer decisive for the outcome of the infringement action.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
In a bifurcated UPC case, the Local Division is bound by the Central Division's amendment of the patent claimsWhere infringement is not found under amended claims, validity becomes irrelevant to the infringement actionDoctrine of equivalents admissibility question may be left open if non-infringement is found without itBifurcation: Local Division must apply amended claim wording from Central Division validity proceedings

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The infringement action concerned EP 3 756 767 B1 (modular point-of-care diagnostic device). Following the Central Division's amendment of the patent in bifurcated proceedings, the Local Division applied the new amended claim wording and found that bioMérieux's challenged diagnostic systems did not meet the amended claim features. The precise scope of the amended claims is not detailed in the excerpt.