UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 864/2025

EP3402420 · AUTOGRAFTING TOOL WITH ENHANCED FLUTE PROFILE AND METHODS OF USE

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed (Patent upheld as granted)
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
—
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Machine tools
Language
German
First decided
Aug 25, 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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC36% (45/125)146
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked

At the UPC: HaeNaem Co., Ltd. (4 cases)·Versah LLC (5 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CoA 188/2026·UPC CFI 56/2025·UPC APP 24791/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-08-25
    InfringementPublic

    Summary: The Local Division Düsseldorf (Panel 1) found that HaeNaem Co., Ltd. and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd. infringed claim 1 (and, via dependency, claim 11) of EP 3 402 420 B1 by importing and placing the accused rotary dental osteotomes on the market in Germany. The court ordered the defendants to cease and desist across nine UPC member states (Germany, Austria, Denmark, Italy, Belgium, Finland, France, the Netherlands and Sweden), to recall the infringing products from commercial distributees, and to render information and accounts, and declared them liable in principle for damages incurred since 1 August 2020. The revocation counterclaim (UPC_CFI_864/2025), raising added matter, insufficiency, and lack of novelty and inventive step over WO2014/077920 A1 and WO2015/138842 A1, was examined on the merits and rejected as unfounded, so the patent is maintained as granted.

    Show the legal issues (7)
    • Direct infringement of a product claim: whether the challenged embodiment is objectively capable, given its nature and suitability for use, of fulfilling the claim features
    • Standing to sue (Aktivlegitimation) of an exclusive (sub-)licensee under Art. 47(2) UPCA
    • Added matter under Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
    • Insufficiency of disclosure under Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
    • Novelty of claims 1 and 11 over WO2014/077920 A1 and WO2015/138842 A1
    • Inventive step of claim 1 in light of the 'negative rake angle' feature
    • Jurisdiction deemed accepted under R. 19.7 RoP absent a preliminary objection under R. 19
Documents
  • 931e8dc8-45d9-4cff-b7a1-fcfb7eb36088.pdf2026-08-25DE