UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 338/2023

Sep 27, 2023·EP4074373 Unitary patent · MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as amended)
Action
Revocation
Category
Main revocation action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Paris CD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Dec 26, 2024
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
Paris CDLockedLocked
Judge Paolo CatallozziLockedLocked
Judge Tatyana ZhilovaLockedLocked
Judge Kerstin RoselingerLockedLocked

At the UPC: Advanced Bionics AG (12 cases)·MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH (5 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 175/2025·UPC CoA 177/2025·UPC CFI 69/2025·UPC CFI 72/2025

10 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 688/2025·UPC CFI 514/2025·UPC CoA 176/2025·UPC CoA 178/2025·UPC CFI 65/2025 and 5 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Paris CD·2023

Decisions
  • 2024-12-26
    Revocation ActionPublic

    Summary: The Paris Central Division dismissed Advanced Bionics' revocation actions (main and counterclaims) against MED-EL's EP 4 074 373 B1 (MRI-safe disk magnet for cochlear implants), maintaining the patent in the amended version of Auxiliary Request 0a after overcoming added-matter objections; costs were allocated 70% to the claimants and 30% to the defendant.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • revocation for insufficiency of disclosure
    • added matter Art. 123(2) EPC
    • lack of inventive step
    • inventor as witness Art. 181 RoP
    • expedited issue ordering on most accessible ground
Documents
Show all 352 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-04-22Not public
procedural order2025-04-22Public
procedural order (ORD_64519_2024)2025-04-10Not public
procedural order2025-04-10Public
Outcome of the Order2025-04-10Not public
procedural order2025-04-10Public
Final order - 12056-2025 - 28.03.20252025-03-28Not public
procedural order2025-03-28Public
Outcome of the Order2025-03-28Not public
procedural order2025-03-28Public
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Advanced Bionics challenged MED-EL's EP 4 074 373 (MRI-safe disk magnet for cochlear and other implants) by revocation action and counterclaim before the Paris Central Division. The court found the patent as granted contained added matter under Art. 123(2) EPC but maintained the patent in amended form (Auxiliary Request 0a), which restricted the claims to specific implant types with a rotatable disc-shaped attachment magnet; insufficiency and inventive-step attacks against the amended claims were also rejected. Costs were allocated 70% to Advanced Bionics and 30% to MED-EL.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patent valid as amended by Auxiliary Request 0a: claim 1 restricted to cochlear/middle ear/vestibular/laryngeal pacemaker implant systems with a rotatable disc-shaped attachment magnet in the implant coil housing

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 65 UPCA; Art. 138 EPC

    Note: The added-matter objection applicable to the patent as granted was overcome by Auxiliary Request 0a; insufficiency and lack of inventive step were also not proven.

  • Insufficiency of disclosure not proven

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 83 EPC; Art. 138(1)(b) EPC

    Note: Panel found the disclosure sufficient even applying a strict reading.

  • Lack of inventive step of Auxiliary Request 0a not proven

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 56 EPC

    Note: Advanced Bionics' inventive step attack against the amended claim was rejected.

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

  • Patent as granted is invalid for added matter (Art. 123(2) EPC)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 123(2) EPC

    Reason: The added-matter objection was found valid for the patent as granted but overcome by the amendment in Auxiliary Request 0a; the panel resolved the case on the basis of the amended claim.

  • Inventor should be heard as a witness or expert

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 181(1) RoP

    Reason: The inventor may have a direct interest in the outcome and does not meet the R.181(1)(a)(b) requirements of impartiality, objectivity and independence for witnesses or experts.

  • Invalidity on grounds of insufficiency of disclosure and lack of inventive step against Auxiliary Request 0a

    ClaimantLegal basis: Arts. 83, 56 EPC

    Reason: Both grounds found not proven against the amended claims.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Court may decide the case by resolving a logically subordinate issue first if that issue is more easily determinable (procedural efficiency principle)Inventor is not eligible to serve as witness or expert due to potential direct interest in outcome (R.181(1) RoP requirements of impartiality, objectivity and independence)Added matter overcome by narrowing amendment; remaining invalidity grounds then assessed against amended claimCosts partially attributable to patentee where patent required amendment: here 70% to claimants / 30% to defendant

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The amended Claim 1 (Auxiliary Request 0a) requires: a planar implant coil housing containing a signal receiver coil; a rotatable first attachment magnet within the coil housing plane with a magnetic dipole parallel to the plane; and that the implant system is specifically one of a cochlear, middle ear, vestibular, or laryngeal pacemaker implant. The disc shape or cut-away disc shape of the magnet is also specified. These restrictions were key to overcoming the added-matter objection to the granted claims.