Overview · Filed: Apr 30, 2025
UPC_CoA_393/2025
EMBOLIC PROTECTION DEVICE
AppealsMain AppealCourt of AppealAppealCase Closed
Parties
Claimants
- Emboline, Inc.
Reps: Thure Schubert (Vossius & Partner Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte mbB)
Respondents
- AorticLab srl
Reps: Sabine Agé (Hoyng ROKH Monegier)
Judges
- Rian Kalden
- Patricia Rombach
- Ingeborg Simonsson
Patents
- EP 2 129 425
CPC codes: A61F2230/0065, A61F2230/0006, A61F2250/0023, A61F2250/0003, A61F2/0105, A61F2002/018, A61F2250/0069, A61F2230/0067, A61F2230/0069, A61F2/011
Sector: Pharmaceutical & Medical
Outcome
Dismissed
Filed: Apr 30, 2025
First decided: —
Language: English
The Court of Appeal allowed AorticLab's appeal and set aside the Munich Local Division's order granting Emboline's application for security for costs. The CoA held that Art. 69(4) UPCA provides no legal basis for a security for costs at the request of the claimant in an infringement action in response to a defendant's counterclaim for revocation. Allowing such security would unreasonably restrict the defendant's right to raise an invalidity defence by means of a mandatory counterclaim.
Open on UPC Registry