UPC Analytics
ENDE
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