UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 481/2026

Feb 5, 2026·EP2581193 · Process for the manufacture of implants or intermediate products of such implants as well as implants and intermediate products obtained by such process

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase (Claim dismissed)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Other special machines
Language
English
First decided
May 7, 2026
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
Hamburg LDLockedLocked
Judge Sabine KlepschLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked
Judge Rute LopesLockedLocked

At the UPC: SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda. (2 cases)·Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH (2 cases)

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

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CoA 66/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Hamburg LD·2026

Decisions
  • 2026-05-07
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The Local Division Hamburg dismissed the infringement action as inadmissible, finding that the UPC lacks competence over EP 2 581 193 B1 because the opt-out filed on 30 March 2023 remains valid and in effect. The withdrawal of the opt-out filed by Claimant 1 on 4 February 2026 was held to be invalid and ineffective because a national revocation action had already been brought before the German Federal Patent Court on 9 January 2026, prior to the withdrawal, triggering the blocking effect under Art. 83(4) UPCA and Rule 5.8 RoP.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Validity of opt-out declaration filed by registered but subsequently non-entitled patent proprietor under Art. 83(3) UPCA
    • Retroactive effect of entitlement decisions on opt-out declarations under Art. 83(4) UPCA
    • Blocking effect of national revocation action on withdrawal of opt-out under Art. 83(4) UPCA and Rule 5.8 RoP
    • Definition of when an action is 'brought' before a national court for purposes of Art. 83(4) UPCA
    • Whether a protective order by a national court precludes the filing of a revocation action for blocking opt-out withdrawal
    • UPC competence and jurisdiction over patent subject to valid opt-out
Documents
Show all 147 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Written procedure reopened2026-09-29Not public
Case closed2026-09-29Not public
Decision2026-07-21Not public
Final Order2026-07-21Not public
Receipt2026-07-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-13Not public
Document2026-07-13Not public
Document2026-07-13Not public
Document2026-07-13Not public
Communication2026-07-07Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The opt-out filed on 30 March 2023 by Defendant 1), as then formally registered and material owner, was valid; entitlement decisions have no retroactive effect so the opt-out remains valid

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 83(3) UPCA; Rules 8.4, 8.5 RoP; § 8 PatG; Art. II § 5 I IntPatÜG

  • The withdrawal of the opt-out on 4 February 2026 was invalid because the revocation action filed by PTH&A before the German Federal Patent Court on 9 January 2026 constituted a prior national action triggering the blocking effect

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 83(4) UPCA; Rule 5.8 RoP; Section 81(4) German Patent Act; Art. 32(1) Brussels Ibis

  • The protective order of the Regional Court Munich did not preclude the effective filing of the revocation action by PTH&A, which was an independent third party not subject to the protective order

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 83(4) UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Defendant 1)'s opt-out was invalid because it was filed by an unauthorised patent applicant without substantive rights, as determined by the later entitlement decision

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 83(3) UPCA

  • The withdrawal of the opt-out was valid because Claimant 1) had substantive rights to the patent as its rightful owner

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 83(4) UPCA; Rule 5.8 RoP

  • The national nullity action did not count as an action under Art. 83(4) UPCA because it was filed in violation of a protective order by a court of a UPC Member State

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 83(4) UPCA

  • Questions of opt-out validity and jurisdiction are intertwined with the merits and should be dealt with in main proceedings under Rule 20.2 RoP

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 20.2 RoP