UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 714/2024

Nov 20, 2024·EP3685783 Unitary patent · ENDOLUMINAL LASER ABLATION DEVICE FOR TREATING VEINS

Follow
Case details
Status
Oral Phase
Action
Infringement
Category
Main infringement action
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Munich LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
German
First decided
Apr 2, 2026
EPO Opposition
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 Mojca MlakarLockedLocked
Judge Torsten DuhmeLockedLocked

At the UPC: biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG (7 cases)·Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH (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 CFI 256/2025·UPC CFI 155/2025·UPC CoA 540/2024·UPC CFI 486/2024·UPC APP 67626/2024

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 292/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Munich LD·2024

Decisions
  • 2026-04-02
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: The court rejected the defendants' application to stay the proceedings and ordered the appointment of a court-appointed expert under Rule 185 RoP to resolve disputed technical questions about the accused embodiment. The court found the patent in its granted form likely invalid but potentially valid in the form of auxiliary request 10B, and deferred any substantive ruling pending the expert's findings.

    Show the legal issues (7)
    • Stay of proceedings under Rule 295(a) RoP pending EPO opposition proceedings
    • Whether revocation by EPO Opposition Division between UPC oral hearing and pronouncement date requires mandatory stay
    • Admissibility of auxiliary requests filed in response to EPO preliminary opinion
    • Added subject-matter (Art. 76(1), 123(2) EPC) in granted claim 1 - omission of 'core' in fusing feature
    • Appointment of court expert under Rule 185 RoP to resolve conflicting technical evidence on infringement
    • Lateral emission mechanism (refraction vs. total internal reflection) in helical grooves of accused product
    • Whether cap of accused product is fused to optical fiber core or cladding
Documents
Show all 230 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-09-25Not public
Other Documents2026-09-25Not public
Order2026-09-25Not public
Communication2026-08-25Not public
Other Documents2026-08-25Not public
Communication2026-08-03Not public
Other Documents2026-08-03Not public
Receipt2026-07-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-23Not public
Document2026-07-23Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • No stay required before oral hearing where UPC oral hearing was scheduled before EPO oral proceedings

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 295(a) RoP

  • Auxiliary request 10B (B-auxiliary requests) was not untimely as it was prompted by EPO's preliminary opinion of 22 October 2025 and could not have been filed earlier

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 30(2) RoP

  • No mandatory stay following EPO revocation decision, since appeal board decision is not expected in the short term and proper administration of justice does not require a stay

    ClaimantLegal basis: Rule 295(m) RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Proceedings should be stayed pending EPO opposition proceedings / following EPO revocation decision

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 295(a), Rule 295(m) RoP

  • B-auxiliary requests were filed late and should not have been admitted

    RespondentLegal basis: Rule 30(2) RoP