UPC CFI 685/2024

The subject matter of claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 lacks novelty and/or inventive step over prior art document D3 (WO 2006/088912 A1) which discloses clay-based hemostatic bandages in dry form on a gauze substrate

The application to further amend the patent (September 1, 2025) was not justified because the claimant failed to establish a connection between the subsequent amendments and new arguments by the defendant, and adding amendments to an already complex set of 51 auxiliary requests does not simplify proceedings

The application to extend the counterclaim for revocation to claim 15 must be dismissed because the defendant did not act with reasonable diligence given the claimant's auxiliary requests were known since April 2025, and allowing the amendment would unreasonably hinder the claimant

Amendments F and G in the auxiliary requests violate Art. 123(2) EPC as they extract features (radiopaque component, clay only on first surface) exclusively disclosed in the sponge embodiment context without incorporating the essential structural context of the sponge

All auxiliary requests (including Amendments A through J across all 51 requests) lack novelty and/or inventive step, predominantly in light of D3 alone or in combination with N2, N6, N7 or other prior art

The attacked embodiment (SpeedM emergency hemostatic dressing) infringes the patent because halloysite-7Å is 'clay material' within the claim and the product contains a binder (chitosan or PPG/PAN)

The 51 auxiliary requests are inadmissible because the number is unreasonably high

The amendments in the further amendment application simplify proceedings, resolve clarity objections, and are proportionate; they do not unduly delay proceedings or prejudice the defendant