UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 628/2024

Oct 28, 2024·EP2129425 · EMBOLIC PROTECTION DEVICE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (No infringement)
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jan 13, 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
Munich LDLockedLocked
Judge Matthias ZigannLockedLocked
Judge Tobias PichlmaierLockedLocked
Judge Petri RinkinenLockedLocked
Judge Elisabetta PapaLockedLocked

At the UPC: Emboline, Inc. (6 cases)·AorticLab srl (6 cases)

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

This dispute contains 5 other proceedings

UPC CoA 123/2026·UPC CoA 40/2026·UPC CoA 393/2025·UPC CFI 125/2025·UPC APP 8962/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-01-13
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: Final decision on the merits in infringement action by Emboline, Inc. against AorticLab srl (EP 2 129 425, medical device). Court dismissed the infringement action finding the patent not infringed. The defendant's counterclaim for revocation was conditional (dependent on a finding of infringement), and since no infringement was found, no decision was made on the counterclaim. Both parties bear their own costs. Key headnotes: infringement not excluded by normal non-infringing operation if patent-compliant use remains possible; irregular use of a medical device in line with professional practice can constitute infringement; conditional counterclaim limited in scope (Rule 263.3 RoP).

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Infringement of medical device patent
    • Normal non-infringing operation not excluding infringement
    • Conditional counterclaim for revocation (Rule 263.3 RoP)
    • Intra-procedural condition for counterclaim decision
    • Costs where no decision on counterclaim (Art. 69(3) UPCA)
Documents
Show all 130 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Other Documents2026-07-21Not public
Communication2026-07-03Not public
Receipt2026-06-24Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-24Not public
Application document Defendant2026-06-24Not public
Other Documents2026-05-11Not public
Receipt2026-05-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-04Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Note2026-02-26Not public
Plain-English summary

Emboline Inc. sued AorticLab srl for infringement of EP 2 129 425 B1 (an embolic protection device for use during cardiac procedures). The Munich Local Division dismissed the infringement action, finding the accused device is normally operated in a non-infringing mode and no irregular patent-compliant use consistent with professional medical practice was shown; AorticLab's conditional counterclaim (dependent on a finding of infringement) was not decided because the triggering condition did not arise, and both parties bore their own costs.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • AorticLab's embolic protection device does not use the patented teaching of EP 2 129 425 in its normal operation

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; claim construction; direct infringement

    Note: Munich Local Division dismissed the infringement action, finding the device is normally operated in a non-infringing manner and that no patent-compliant use consistent with professional medical practice was demonstrated.

  • Conditional counterclaim (dependent on finding of infringement) is procedurally valid and limits the court's scope of decision

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 263.3 RoP; Art. 76(1) UPCA

    Note: Court confirmed that an unconditional-to-conditional transition of a counterclaim constitutes a limitation under R. 263.3 RoP, and that since the condition (infringement finding) did not occur, no decision on the counterclaim was required.

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

  • AorticLab's device infringes EP 2 129 425 because irregular patent-compliant use by medical professionals constitutes infringement

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25 UPCA; Headnote 1

    Reason: Patent infringement is not excluded merely because normal operation is non-infringing, BUT in the medical device context irregular patent-compliant use only constitutes infringement if in line with professional practice and recognised rules of medical science — claimant failed to demonstrate this.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Patent infringement not excluded by fact device normally operates non-infringingly, as long as patent-compliant use remains possibleIn medical devices, irregular patent-compliant use constitutes infringement only if consistent with professional practice and recognised medical science rulesConditional counterclaim dependent on intra-procedural event (infringement finding) is procedurally valid and limits court's mandate (R. 263.3 RoP; Art. 76(1) UPCA)If condition for counterclaim decision does not occur, counterclaimant bears costs for counterclaim as unnecessary costs (Art. 69(3) UPCA)Both parties bear their own costs where claimant fails on infringement and counterclaimant's conditional counterclaim is not decided

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The court addressed the scope of EP 2 129 425 in relation to the AorticLab embolic protection device. The key question was whether an irregular but technically patent-compliant use mode of the device (not its normal operating mode) could constitute infringement. The court held that in the medical device context such use must align with professional practice and recognised medical science — a requirement the claimant failed to satisfy.