UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 85/2026

May 27, 2026·EP2077811: CLAY-BASED HEMOSTATIC AGENTS AND DEVICES FOR THE DELIVERY THEREOF

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Ulrich Blumenröder (Grünecker Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartGmbH)
Respondents
Reps: Alexander Reetz (Wildanger Kehrwald Graf von Schwerin & Partner mbB)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
English
First decided
Jun 10, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-06-10
    EvidenceRequest for a discretionary review (RoP 220.3)

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the Applicant's (Speed Care Mineral GmbH) request for a discretionary review of the Local Division Hamburg's determination of the value in dispute of the Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000. The Court held that the LD's decision was not manifestly incorrect, as the Guidelines on value in dispute are not mandatory and the LD had discretion to set the revocation counterclaim value equal to the infringement action value given the patent's short remaining duration and other circumstances. No fundamental legal question was raised that would justify discretionary review.

    Legal issues:Admissibility of discretionary review under R. 220.3 RoP where CFI fails to rule within 15-day periodWhether absence of CFI decision within 15-day period of R. 220.3 RoP constitutes implied refusal of leave to appealWhether determination of value in dispute is a procedural decision subject to R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoPWhether setting value in dispute of counterclaim for revocation equal to (not 150% of) infringement action value is manifestly incorrectDiscretionary nature of Administrative Committee Guidelines on value in dispute (R. 370.6 RoP)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-06-10Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-06-10Not public
Final Order2026-06-10Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-06-02Not public
Receipt2026-06-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-02Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-06-01Not public
Further pleadings2026-06-01Not public
Formal Deficiency found2026-05-29Not public
Receipt2026-05-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-27Not public
Other document Appellant2026-05-27Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-27Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-27Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-05-27Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2026-05-27Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The absence of a CFI decision within the 15-day period of R. 220.3 RoP should be regarded as an implied refusal, making the request for discretionary review admissible

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 220.3 RoP

  • The determination of value in dispute is a procedural decision to which R. 220.2 and R. 220.3 RoP apply, even when part of a final decision

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 220.2, R. 220.3 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The LD's determination of value in dispute of the Counterclaim for revocation at EUR 1,000,000 (equal to infringement action, not 150% thereof) is manifestly incorrect given the Guidelines and LD practice

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 370.6 RoP; Administrative Committee Guidelines Section 2.b)(2)(ii)

  • The determination of value in dispute raises a fundamental legal question requiring review for consistent application of the Rules of Procedure

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 220.3 RoP