UPC CFI 701/2024
Nov 19, 2024·EP2077811 · CLAY-BASED HEMOSTATIC AGENTS AND DEVICES FOR THE DELIVERY THEREOF
Action number: ACT 61342/2024
- Case details
- StatusCase ClosedActionProvisional measuresCategoryProvisional measures
- Parties
- Claimants
- Teleflex Life Sciences II LLCOperating co.
Representatives- Ulrich Blumenröder-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Sebastian Ochs-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Elvira Bertram-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Thomas Laubenthal-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
- Alexander Stumvoll-Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH
Respondents- Speed Care Mineral GmbHOperating co.
Representatives- Alexander Reetz-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Peter-Michael Weisse-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Eva-Maria Thörner-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Jan-Caspar Maiers-Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Technology
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Feb 21, 2025
- EPO Opposition
- CARL FREUDENBERG KG Patente und Marken2011-08-04
| Preliminary injunction granted | Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|---|
| All UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Sabine Klepsch | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Johansson | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Stefan Schilling | Locked | Locked |
| Judge Jeroen Meewisse | Locked | Locked |
At the UPC: Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC (6 cases)·Speed Care Mineral GmbH (6 cases)
This dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CoA 85/2026·UPC CFI 235/2025·UPC CFI 157/2025·UPC CFI 685/2024·UPC CFI 1849/2026
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Hamburg LD·2024
- 2025-02-21Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The Hamburg Local Division dismissed Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC's application for provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral GmbH regarding hemostatic wound-care products, because Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a 'binder' as required by the patent claims, and the burden of proof was not reversed.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Burden of proof for patent infringement in provisional measures proceedings
- Reversal of burden of proof threshold under Art. 62(2) UPCA and R. 209(2) RoP
- Sufficiency of evidence for presence of claimed 'binder' element
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| FInalOrder | 2025-02-21 | Not public |
| Headnote-and-Keywords | 2025-02-21 | Not public |
| Measures_DecisionOutcome_Notification.pdf | 2025-02-21 | Not public |
| Order with grounds | 2025-02-21 | Not public |
| Order with grounds | 2025-02-21 | Public |
| Template-Order | 2025-02-21 | Not public |
| Order with grounds | 2025-02-21 | Not public |
| Closing workflow (ORD_5952_2025) | 2025-02-04 | Not public |
| Outcome of the Order | 2025-02-04 | Not public |
| Closing workflow | 2025-02-04 | Public |
Teleflex Life Sciences applied for a preliminary injunction against Speed Care Mineral's hemostatic wound-care products based on EP 2 077 811. The Hamburg Local Division dismissed the application because Teleflex failed to demonstrate with the required certainty that the attacked product contained a 'binder' as claimed, and the burden of proof was not reversed in the applicant's favour. Since infringement could not be established, the court did not need to assess patent validity or other PI requirements.
Burden of proof for patent infringement lies with applicant and is not reversed without sufficient prior indication of infringement
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 209(2) RoPNote: The Hamburg Local Division confirmed that the standard burden of proof on the applicant to establish infringement was not reversed in this case because Teleflex had not provided reasonable indications that the accused product contained a 'binder' as required by the claims.
Attacked embodiment (Speed Care hemostatic gauze) contains a binder as required by patent claims
ClaimantLegal basis: EP 2 077 811Reason: Teleflex failed to demonstrate with sufficient certainty that the attacked product contains a binder; the defendant's evidence (scanning electron microscope images from University of Greifswald) showed mechanical adhesion of halloysite to cellulose fiber without a binder, and Teleflex presented no contradicting evidence.
Burden of proof should be reversed because applicant has provided reasonable indications of infringement
ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 209(2) RoPReason: The court found that the applicant's evidence was insufficient to constitute 'reasonable indications and/or facts' that would reverse the burden of proof.
The central claim construction issue was the meaning of 'binder' in EP 2 077 811 (clay-based hemostatic agents). The court did not resolve this definitively because it found infringement not proven regardless: the defendant argued that halloysite nanotubes mechanically adhere to the Lyocell carrier via interlacing and electrostatic processes without a binder, and Teleflex could not disprove this.