UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 374/2025

Apr 25, 2025·EP3689262 Unitary patent · STAPLE CARTRIDGE

Action number: ACT 19943/2025

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Aug 29, 2025
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
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Stefan JohanssonLockedLocked
Judge Dennis KretschmannLockedLocked

At the UPC: Janssen Group (11 cases)·RiVOLUTiON GmbH (7 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 871/2025

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 1918/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: The Hague LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2025-08-29
    Application 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)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Headnote-and-Keywords2025-08-29Not public
Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf2025-08-29Not public
Final order provisional measures2025-08-29Public
Submission_Rivolution2025-08-18Not public
Exhibit_PEN152025-08-18Not public
opportunity to comment2025-08-15Not public
Receipt2025-08-15Not public
R.9 Request_signed2025-08-14Not public
Response additional evidence_signed2025-08-14Not public
Response additional evidence_signed2025-08-14Not public
opportunity to comment2025-08-13Not public
Receipt2025-08-13Not public
Exhibit_PEN122025-08-13Not public
AdditionalEvidence2025-08-13Not public
Exhibit_PEN142025-08-13Not public
Exhibit_PEN132025-08-13Not public
ORAL_HEARING_REFERENCING_19943_2025_OH_HAG_LOC_UPC2025071413PM2025-07-16Not public
ORAL_HEARING_REFERENCING_19943_2025_OH_HAG_LOC_UPC2025071413PM2025-07-16Not public
Acknowledgement-of-lodging2025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN112025-07-14Not public
Objection2025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN22025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN32025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN82025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN72025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN62025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN52025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN42025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN102025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN12025-07-14Not public
Exhibit_PEN92025-07-14Not public
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-07-11Not public
re-uploaded for CMS/technical reasons only2025-07-11Public
re-uploaded for CMS/technical reasons only2025-07-11Public
Response_Rivolution2025-07-08Not public
Exhibit_PEN112025-07-08Not public
Exhibit_PEN102025-07-08Not public
Brief_re_cost_recovery2025-07-08Not public
Brief_re_cost_recovery2025-07-08Not public
opportunity to comment2025-07-01Not public
opportunity to comment2025-07-01Not public
Receipt2025-07-01Not public
R262A_Request_re_31399_20252025-06-30Not public
R9_Request_31399_2025_CONFIDENTIAL2025-06-30Not public
opportunity to comment2025-06-24Not public
creating opportunity to upload2025-06-24Not public
20250624_Request_R262A_of_Cilag_et_al_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP23_DE2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP23a_EN2025-06-24Not public
20250624_Reply_of_Objection_Cilag_et_al_confidential_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP20_DE2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP20a_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP21_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP22_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP19_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP20_DE2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP21_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP23a_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP19_EN2025-06-24Not public
20250624_Reply_of_Objection_Cilag_et_al_confidential_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP22_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP20a_EN2025-06-24Not public
Exhibit_BP23_DE2025-06-24Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-06-10Not public
admission of further evidence2025-06-10Public
Exhibit_PEN32025-06-10Not public
Exhibit_PEN52025-06-10Not public
Exhibit_PEN12025-06-10Not public
Exhibit_PEN62025-06-10Not public
Exhibit_PEN72025-06-10Not public
Exhibit_PEN82025-06-10Not public
Exhibit_PEN42025-06-10Not public
Exhibit_PEN22025-06-10Not public
Objection_Rivolution2025-06-10Not public
Exhibit_PEN92025-06-10Not public
Comments pursuant to RoP2642025-06-06Not public
opportunity to comment2025-06-05Not public
Receipt2025-06-04Not public
Exhibit BP182025-06-03Not public
Rule9 Request Cilag2025-06-03Not public
procedural order2025-05-12Not public
Notification Of Service2025-05-09Not public
2025_05_08 CT_19943_2025 UPC_CFI_374_2025 Confirmation of service RiVOLUTiON GmbH2025-05-09Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2025-05-08Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-05-08Not public
Letter-for-Service2025-05-01Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-04-30Not public
Notice-to-Accompany-Service-of-Order-for-Measures2025-04-29Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-04-29Not public
Application-For-Measures-Receipt2025-04-29Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP04_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP16_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP11_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP05_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP07_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP08_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP15_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP12_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP17_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP09_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP14_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP02_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
20250425_Application_provisional_measures_Cilag_et_al_en_signed2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP00_Cilag Proof of Payment2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP02a_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP03_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP06_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP10_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP01_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Application for provisional measures_Amendment after request for correction2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP13_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Exhibit_BP01a_Cilag2025-04-29Not public
Formal-checks_Request-for-correction2025-04-28Not public
Application-For-Measures-Acknowledgement2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP13_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP11_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP15_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP12_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP01_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP08_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP14_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP09_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
20250425_Application_provisional_measures_Cilag_et_al_en_signed2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP00_Cilag Proof of Payment2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP10_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP17_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP03_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP05_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP02a_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP06_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP01a_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP02_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP07_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP16_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Exhibit_BP04_Cilag2025-04-25Not public
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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 RoP

    Note: 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 RoP

    Note: 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.

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

  • 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 RoP

    Reason: 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

    Claimant

    Reason: 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

    Claimant

    Reason: Dismissed: proceedings are closed after the oral hearing and further evidence is not admitted.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
temporal urgency for provisional measures under R. 211.4 RoPurgency assessed from when applicant knew or should have known of infringementdelay in analysing known facts cannot revive urgencycosts follow the event in PI proceedings

Browse other cases on this principle.