UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 486/2024

Aug 14, 2024·EP3685783: ENDOLUMINAL LASER ABLATION DEVICE FOR TREATING VEINS

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional Measures
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Paul Szynka (CBH Rechtsanwälte); Hannes Jacobsen (CBH Rechtsanwälte); Alexander Fischer (CBH Rechtsanwälte)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
German
First decided
Sep 5, 2024
Decisions
  • 2024-09-05
    PI deniedPreliminary injunctionApplication for provisional measures

    The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected Bioletic's application for a preliminary injunction concerning EP 3 685 783 B1 without an oral hearing, holding that the applicant had failed to demonstrate why a main action would be insufficient and had not established an ongoing or imminent harm justifying urgent provisional relief.

    Legal issues:urgency requirement for provisional measuressubstantive necessity for interim relief vs main actiondismissal without oral hearing R.209.1-2 RoP
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2025-11-25Not public
Notification Of Service2024-10-31Not public
Service_LIGHTGUIDE International2024-10-31Not public
Notification Of Service2024-10-31Not public
Service_Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH2024-10-31Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-10-30Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2024-10-24Not public
Final Order on the application on provisional measures2024-09-05Public
Anlage CBH 51b - Maschinenübersetzung2024-08-23Not public
Anlage CBH 51a - Entscheidung der LK Den Haag vom 31.07.2024 - Amycel2024-08-23Not public
Mitteilung und Stellungnahme vom 23.08.20242024-08-23Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-08-23Not public
Bitte um Mitteilung ASt2024-08-21Not public
Anlage CBH 492024-08-19Not public
Stellungnahme CBH zur Anordnung vom 15.08.20242024-08-19Not public
Anlage CBH 472024-08-19Not public
Anlage CBH 502024-08-19Not public
Anlage CBH 482024-08-19Not public
Order Gelegenheit zur ergänzenden Stellungnahme ASt2024-08-15Public
Template-Order2024-08-15Not public
Letter for Service2024-08-15Not public
Letter for Service2024-08-15Not public
Panel-Appointment2024-08-15Not public
Application-For-Measures-Receipt2024-08-15Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2024-08-15Not public
Application-For-Measures-Acknowledgement2024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 412024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 322024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 352024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 62024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 192024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 292024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 142024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 102024-08-14Not public
Anlage Z - Übersetzung Antragsschrift englisch2024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 432024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 402024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 332024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 112024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 72024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 212024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 362024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 42024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 12024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 382024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 252024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 72024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 422024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 112024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 222024-08-14Not public
Antrag auf Erlass einstweiliger Anordnung vom 14.08.20242024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 372024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 202024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 262024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 392024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 122024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 42024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 32024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 52024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 32024-08-14Not public
Anlage Z - Übersetzung Antragsschrift lettisch2024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 162024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 102024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 52024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 442024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 152024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 242024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 302024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 22024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 132024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 182024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 92024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 282024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 62024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 12024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 23 - Teil 82024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 92024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 82024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 172024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 342024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 272024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 462024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 312024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 452024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 122024-08-14Not public
Anlage CBH 22024-08-14Not public
Plain-English summary

Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG applied to the Düsseldorf Local Division for a preliminary injunction against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International based on EP 3 685 783 B1 (endoluminal laser ablation device for vein treatment). The court rejected the application without oral hearing, finding that Bioletic had not specifically demonstrated why a main action would be insufficient to provide adequate legal protection; the evidence of harm (market saturation, distributor estimates, Italian tenders) was speculative and insufficient to establish the substantive necessity for provisional measures.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Applicant failed to demonstrate why a main action would be insufficient to provide adequate legal protection, making provisional measures unnecessary

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 206; R. 209.1-2 VerfO

    Note: Court held that the substantive necessity of provisional measures requires a specific showing that the harm cannot be adequately compensated through a main action; mere invocation of urgency timeframes is insufficient.

  • Court may dismiss provisional measures application without oral hearing where applicant indicates no further oral discussion is needed if court maintains its preliminary view

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 209.1-2 VerfO

    Note: After the court signalled the application lacked merit, Bioletic indicated no further hearing was needed; the court exercised its discretion to dismiss without oral hearing.

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

  • Market saturation from infringing products and long-term customer lock-in create irreparable harm justifying provisional measures

    Claimant

    Reason: Bioletic's evidence of market saturation (6–12 months) and customer lock-in was based on speculation and estimates of one distributor rather than concrete evidence; no specific harm was shown that could not be compensated monetarily in main proceedings.

  • Ongoing tenders in Italy creating long-term binding commitments justify urgent provisional measures

    Claimant

    Reason: The reference to tenders was too generic and did not substantiate specific, concrete harm of the magnitude justifying provisional measures rather than a main action.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Substantive necessity for provisional measures: applicant must specifically demonstrate why main proceedings are insufficient to remedy the harmCourt may dismiss provisional measures application without oral hearing when applicant indicates no further hearing is neededUrgency alone is insufficient; temporal and substantive necessity are both required for provisional measuresIrreparable harm threshold: harm must be of a magnitude that monetary compensation in main proceedings cannot adequately address

Browse other cases on this principle.