UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: Aug 7, 2025

UPC_CFI_712/2025

SANDWICH SENSOR FOR THE DETERMINATION OF AN ANALYTE CONCENTRATION

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresDusseldorf LDProvisional measuresOral Phase
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Coverage: Partial.Reasoning extracted with partial coverage — some sections may be incomplete.
Plain-English summary

Roche (F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH) obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against A. Menarini Diagnostics entities for infringement of EP 1 962 668 B1, covering an implantable sandwich sensor for glucose monitoring. The court issued a recall and seizure order in France, Italy, and Germany, set important headnotes on the relationship between product and process claims and on the territorial scope of manufacturing injunctions, and ordered EUR 32,051 provisional cost reimbursement.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Product claim scope is not limited by the corresponding independent process claim even where both are in the same patent

    ClaimantLegal basis: Headnote 1 of the order

    Note: Court held that an independent process claim and its corresponding description are only relevant to the scope of a product claim if the specification indicates the process also describes characteristics of the claimed product.

  • An injunction covering 'making' of the infringing product can be issued even if manufacturing currently occurs outside UPC contracting states

    ClaimantLegal basis: Headnote 2 of the order

    Note: Court confirmed that a manufacturing injunction may issue even where current production is by a third party outside contracting member states.

  • Menarini's implantable glucose sensor infringes EP 1 962 668 B1

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA

    Note: Preliminary injunction granted covering Germany, France, and Italy with recall, seizure, and disclosure orders.

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

No rejected arguments captured.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Independent process claim does not limit scope of independent product claim unless patent specification explicitly links process features to product characteristicsManufacturing injunction may cover products currently made outside contracting states by third partiesPurposive claim construction: scope of device claim determined by its structural features, not by unclaimed functions described elsewhere in the specification

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The Düsseldorf court addressed the relationship between an independent product claim and an independent process claim in EP 1 962 668 B1. It held that the process claim is relevant to the product claim's scope only to the extent the specification indicates the process also describes properties of the claimed product itself. This limits any attempt by the defendant to narrow the product claim by importing limitations from the process claim.