UPC CFI 374/2025
Apr 25, 2025·EP3689262 Unitary patent · STAPLE CARTRIDGE
Action number: ACT 19943/2025
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Cilag GmbH InternationalOperating co.
- Ethicon LLCOperating co.
Representatives- Tilman Mueller-Stoy-Bardehle Pagenberg
- Division
- The Hague LD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Aug 29, 2025
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| The Hague LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Edger Brinkman | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Margot Kokke | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Johansson | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Dennis Kretschmann | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Janssen Group (11 cases)·RiVOLUTiON GmbH (7 cases)
This dispute contains 1 other proceedings
1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: The Hague LD·2025
- 2025-08-29Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The Hague Local Division dismissed Cilag GmbH International's and Ethicon LLC's application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) against RiVOLUTiON GmbH for alleged infringement of EP 3 689 262 (a staple cartridge patent for surgical staplers). The court found that the urgency requirement for provisional measures was not satisfied: Cilag had known or should have known by November 2024 (following a Bariatric Study result) of the potential infringement and related market risks, and had not filed the application promptly. The fact that a Sana group tender outcome became clearer later did not revive urgency as it was foreseeable. Cilag was ordered to pay EUR 80,000 as an interim costs award to RiVOLUTiON. Ancillary applications were also dismissed.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Urgency requirement for provisional measures / preliminary injunction (R. 211 RoP)
- Start of urgency period – when applicant knew or should have known of infringement
- David vs Goliath argument insufficient to revive urgency
- Interim costs award (Art. 69 UPCA)
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-08-29 | Not public |
| Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf | 2025-08-29 | Not public |
| Final order provisional measures | 2025-08-29 | Public |
| Submission_Rivolution | 2025-08-18 | Not public |
| Exhibit_PEN15 | 2025-08-18 | Not public |
| opportunity to comment | 2025-08-15 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2025-08-15 | Not public |
| R.9 Request_signed | 2025-08-14 | Not public |
| Response additional evidence_signed | 2025-08-14 | Not public |
| Response additional evidence_signed | 2025-08-14 | Not public |
Cilag GmbH International and Ethicon LLC (Johnson & Johnson group) applied for a preliminary injunction against RiVOLUTiON GmbH concerning EP 3 689 262, a staple cartridge patent for surgical staplers, before The Hague Local Division. The court dismissed the application for lack of temporal urgency, finding that Cilag had known or should have known by November 2024 — following the Bariatric Study result — of the potential infringement and related market risks, and that subsequent developments regarding Sana group did not revive urgency. Cilag was ordered to pay EUR 80,000 in interim costs to Rivolution.
Temporal urgency for provisional measures not established because applicant knew or should have known of infringement risk by November 2024
RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoPNote: The Hague Local Division held that Cilag's knowledge of the Bariatric Study results and Rivolution's market presence since November 2024 meant urgency was not established; the fact that Cilag only properly studied the facts in April 2025 could not create urgency retroactively.
Sana group tender outcome did not revive urgency as it was foreseeable from November 2024
RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoPNote: Rivolution demonstrated it had been listed as a Sana supplier since January 2023 and that both parties participated in a 2023 Sana tender; Cilag should have appreciated the potential market impact after November 2024.
Cilag had urgency because it only became aware of the true extent of infringement and market risk (Sana acceptance, price erosion risk) in April 2025
ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoPReason: The court found that all relevant facts were available to Cilag by November 2024 at the latest; delay in properly analysing known facts cannot itself create urgency for provisional measures.
David vs. Goliath argument: Cilag's larger market position vs. Rivolution's smaller size creates special urgency
ClaimantReason: The court acknowledged the argument as a potentially legitimate consideration but found it could not create urgency in circumstances where the factual basis for urgency was already available to Cilag much earlier.
Applications to submit further evidence after the oral hearing should be admitted
ClaimantReason: Dismissed: proceedings are closed after the oral hearing and further evidence is not admitted.