UPC CoA 93/2026
Jun 11, 2026·EP2352431 · METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING X-RAY FOCAL SPOT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TOMOSYNTHESIS AND MAMMOGRAPHY IMAGING
- Case details
- StatusWritten PhaseActionAppealCategoryMain appeal
- Parties
- Claimants
- Siemens Healthineers AGOperating co.
- Siemens Healthcare GmbHOperating co.
- Siemens Healthineers Nederland B.V.Operating co.
- Siemens Healthcare SASOperating co.
Representatives- Matthias Meyer-Bird & Bird LLP
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Technology
- Electrical engineeringElectrical machinery, apparatus, energy
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Language
- English
- First decided
- Jul 15, 2026
- EPO Opposition
- Siemens Healthcare GmbHAdmissible2019-05-14
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
| Judge Ulrike Voß | Locked |
| Judge Nathalie Sabotier | Locked |
| Judge Bart van den Broek | Locked |
At the UPC: Siemens Healthineers AG (6 cases)·Hologic, Inc. (6 cases)
This dispute contains 5 other proceedings
UPC CoA 94/2026·UPC CFI 259/2025·UPC CFI 758/2024·UPC APP 16529/2025·UPC APP 33733/2025
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2026
- 2026-07-15AppealPublic
Summary: The Court of Appeal rejected the Siemens Healthineers entities' application for suspensive effect of their appeal against the Local Division Düsseldorf's infringement decision of 10 June 2026 (UPC-CFI-758/2024). The Court found no manifest error in the Local Division's claim interpretation of feature 4.1, nor any infringement of the appellants' right to be heard, and rejected the auxiliary request regarding the injunction scope against Appellants 3 and 4.
Show the legal issues (5)
- Suspensive effect of appeal (Art. 74 UPCA)
- Manifest error standard for suspensive effect
- Right to be heard (Art. 76(2) UPCA; Art. 6 ECHR)
- Claim interpretation of functional features (feature 4.1 - focal spot positioning)
- Injunction scope against entities not previously found to have committed specific infringing acts
| Document title | Date | Public |
|---|---|---|
| Note | 2026-09-04 | Not public |
| Receipt | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Other document Appellant | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Statement of the Grounds of Appeal | 2026-09-03 | Not public |
| Publication of order | 2026-07-15 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-07-15 | Not public |
| Order | 2026-07-15 | Public |
| Receipt | 2026-07-03 | Not public |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-03 | Not public |
Local Division's functional interpretation of claim feature 4.1 (taking description into account) was not manifestly incorrect; the mere fact that the Local Division's interpretation differs from the Appellants' does not render it manifestly erroneous
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 74 UPCA; manifest error standardLocal Division satisfied its obligation to address the Appellants' core arguments regarding feature 4.1 in the impugned decision (paras. 24, 36, 37, 123-128), fulfilling the right to be heard
ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 76(2) UPCA; Art. 77(1) UPCA; R. 350.4 RoP; Art. 6 ECHRAs a general rule, proof of past infringement is sufficient to establish a risk of further infringing acts, including acts of use not previously committed (per UPC-CoA-789/2025, Dyson v. Dreame)
ClaimantLegal basis: UPC-CoA-789/2025 (Dyson v. Dreame)
The Local Division's interpretation of claim feature 4.1 (requiring the focal spot to be fixed 'in one position') was manifestly incorrect because it disregarded part of the claim wording
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 74 UPCA; manifest errorThe Local Division violated the right to be heard by not adequately addressing the Appellants' submissions regarding the 'in one position' requirement
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 76(2) UPCA; Art. 6 ECHRThe injunction against Appellants 3 and 4 was manifestly incorrect because it was based only on marketing material and covered acts of use not previously committed by those entities
RespondentLegal basis: Art. 74 UPCA; manifest error