UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 898/2025

Oct 31, 2025·EP3421081 +1 more: A SYSTEM FOR NEUROMODULATION

Case details
Status
Oral Phase
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Matthias Traut (Peterreins Schley)
Respondents
Reps: Jan Zecher (Fish & Richardson P.C.)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
German
First decided
Mar 27, 2026
Claims
At issue1, 7, 9
Not infringedcombination of claims 1+7+9 (non-registered version)
Notes: The court assessed a non-registered combination of claims 1, 7, and 9 (former auxiliary request 8 of first instance, now unconditional main request on appeal). No finding on validity was made. The court did not reach the question of legal validity of the combination as it found no sufficient certainty of infringement.
Decisions
  • 2026-03-27
    PI deniedAppeal decisionAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the Munich Local Division's order of 17 October 2025, refusing to grant a preliminary injunction. The court found that neither direct nor indirect infringement of EP 3 421 081 (in the claimed non-registered claim combination) could be established with sufficient certainty, because the accused product (ExaStim) is not pre-programmed at delivery and the user manuals do not instruct the required claim-conforming programming. The claimant was ordered to pay the respondent's provisional costs of EUR 56,000.

    Legal issues:Admissibility of enforcing a patent in a non-registered (amended) claim version in preliminary injunction proceedingsAdmissibility of auxiliary requests in appeal proceedings in PI cases (R. 222 RoP)Scope of R. 211.2 RoP: whether 'patent in question' refers only to the granted claim versionDirect infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA: whether accused product meets all claim features at time of deliveryIndirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA: subjective element (intended use / Verwendungsbestimmung)Whether user manuals establish the required intended use for indirect infringementAttribution of customer programming acts to defendant ('verlängerte Werkbank')Costs: provisional costs award at 50% of the applicable ceiling under R. 150/152 RoP
  • 2026-03-27
    PI deniedAppeal decisionAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal against the Local Division Munich's refusal to grant provisional measures. The Court held that neither direct nor indirect infringement of EP 3 421 081 in the asserted claim version (a combination of claims 1, 7, and 9) was sufficiently certain, as the contested embodiment (ExaStim) was not shown to be programmed according to the claim at delivery, and the user manuals did not establish the required intended use for indirect infringement. The applicant was ordered to pay the defendant's provisional costs of EUR 56,000.

    Legal issues:admissibility of asserting unregistered/non-granted claim version in provisional measures proceedingsadmissibility of auxiliary requests in appeal proceedings for provisional measures (R. 222 RoP)interpretation of R. 211.2 RoP — 'patent in question' vs 'granted version'direct infringement — delivery state of contested embodiment without pre-programmed patternsindirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA — subjective requirement of intended usedetermination of intended use from objective circumstances including user manuals'extended workbench' doctrine for attributing customer acts to defendantadmissibility of Spanish-language user manual introduced late on appealcosts ceiling and interim award of costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA, R. 150(2) RoP)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-03-27Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-03-27Not public
Final Order2026-03-27Public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-03-06Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-03-06Not public
Receipt2026-02-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-13Not public
Document Respondent2026-02-13Not public
Receipt2026-02-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-11Not public
Document Respondent2026-02-11Not public
Document Respondent2026-02-11Not public
Document Respondent2026-02-11Not public
Document Respondent2026-02-11Not public
Document Respondent2026-02-11Not public
Document Respondent2026-02-11Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-11Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-11Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-03Not public
Receipt2026-01-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-30Not public
Receipt2026-01-29Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-29Not public
Other document Respondent2026-01-29Not public
Other document Respondent2026-01-29Not public
Other document Respondent2026-01-29Not public
Receipt2026-01-23Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-23Not public
Other document Respondent2026-01-23Not public
action.communication.general2026-01-23Not public
Receipt2026-01-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-21Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-21Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-01-15Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-01-15Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-01-15Not public
Summons2026-01-15Public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-09Not public
Order2026-01-09Public
Cover sheet2025-11-25Not public
Statement of Response2025-11-25Not public
Receipt2025-11-25Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-11Not public
Cover sheet2025-10-31Not public
Fee2025-10-31Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-10-31Not public
Proof of payment2025-10-31Not public
Receipt2025-10-31Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • A patent may be enforced in a non-registered (amended) claim version in preliminary injunction proceedings; R. 211.2 RoP does not restrict enforcement to the granted claim version

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.2 RoP; Art. 76(1) UPCA

  • Auxiliary requests are generally admissible in PI appeal proceedings under R. 222 RoP, subject to case-specific assessment

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 222.1, 222.2, 263 RoP; Art. 73(3), 76(1) UPCA

  • The objective requirements of Art. 26 UPCA for indirect infringement are satisfied for both the ExaStim system and the ReCure electrode pad

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 26(1) UPCA
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA: the accused product (ExaStim) directly embodies all claim features at time of offer/delivery

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Attribution of customer programming acts to defendant ('verlängerte Werkbank') establishing direct infringement

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 25(a) UPCA

  • Indirect infringement: the user manuals establish the required intended use (Verwendungsbestimmung) for claim-conforming programming under Art. 26 UPCA

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 26 UPCA

  • Enforcing only the granted claim version in PI proceedings is mandatory; a non-registered claim combination is inadmissible

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.2, R. 30 RoP

  • The appeal claim (former auxiliary request 8 as unconditional main request) constitutes a new, late-filed request that should be rejected

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 222.2 RoP