UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 93/2026

Jun 11, 2026·EP2352431 · METHOD AND SYSTEM FOR CONTROLLING X-RAY FOCAL SPOT CHARACTERISTICS FOR TOMOSYNTHESIS AND MAMMOGRAPHY IMAGING

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Electrical engineering
    Electrical machinery, apparatus, energy
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
English
First decided
Jul 15, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Ulrike VoßLocked
Judge Nathalie SabotierLocked
Judge Bart van den BroekLocked

At the UPC: Siemens Healthineers AG (6 cases)·Hologic, Inc. (6 cases)

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

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

Decisions
  • 2026-07-15
    AppealPublic

    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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Note2026-09-04Not public
Receipt2026-09-03Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-03Not public
Other document Appellant2026-09-03Not public
Statement of the Grounds of Appeal2026-09-03Not public
Publication of order2026-07-15Not public
Order2026-07-15Not public
Order2026-07-15Public
Receipt2026-07-03Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-03Not public
Submission Respondent2026-07-03Not public
Order2026-06-25Not public
Order2026-06-25Public
Communication2026-06-24Not public
Other Documents2026-06-24Not public
Receipt2026-06-22Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-22Not public
Fee2026-06-22Not public
Proof of payment2026-06-22Not public
Application Appellant2026-06-22Not public
Application Appellant2026-06-22Not public
Publication2026-06-16Not public
Receipt2026-06-11Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-11Not public
Fee2026-06-11Not public
Proof of payment2026-06-11Not public
Statement of Appeal2026-06-11Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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 standard

  • Local 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 ECHR

  • As 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)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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 error

  • The 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 ECHR

  • The 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