UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 898/2025

Oct 31, 2025·EP3421081 · A SYSTEM FOR NEUROMODULATION

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
German
First decided
Mar 27, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Ulrike VoßLocked
Judge Bart van den BroekLocked
Judge Nathalie SabotierLocked
Judge Claus ElmerosLocked
Judge Selma SchenklLocked

At the UPC: ONWARD Medical N.V. (7 cases)·Niche Biomedical, Inc. (7 cases)

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

This dispute contains 6 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1423/2026·UPC CFI 1424/2026·UPC CFI 2082/2025·UPC CFI 1569/2025·UPC CFI 693/2025 and 1 more

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-03-27
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (8)
    • Admissibility of enforcing a patent in a non-registered (amended) claim version in preliminary injunction proceedings
    • Admissibility 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 version
    • Direct infringement under Art. 25(a) UPCA: whether accused product meets all claim features at time of delivery
    • Indirect infringement under Art. 26 UPCA: subjective element (intended use / Verwendungsbestimmung)
    • Whether user manuals establish the required intended use for indirect infringement
    • Attribution of customer programming acts to defendant ('verlängerte Werkbank')
    • Costs: provisional costs award at 50% of the applicable ceiling under R. 150/152 RoP
Documents
Show all 57 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-03-27Not public
Decision2026-03-27Not public
Final Order2026-03-27Public
Oral procedure closed2026-03-06Not 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
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