Home » UPC decisions » Local Division » Hamburg Local Division » LD Hamburg, April 27, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_685/2024, UPC_CFI_157/2025

LD Hamburg, April 27, 2026, Decision, UPC_CFI_685/2024, UPC_CFI_157/2025

4 min Reading time

Key takeaways

The Court must weigh all relevant circumstances, including the complexity of the technology, the number of prior art documents, the nature and number of validity attacks (novelty, inventive step, clarity, enablement, added matter), and the structure and similarity of the auxiliary requests.

The defendant must demonstrate reasonable diligence under R. 263(2)(a) RoP. Failing to include a claim in the counterclaim when grounds were already known for several months demonstrates a lack of such diligence.

The claimant must explain why the amendment is necessary and establish a connection between the opposing party’s specific arguments and the proposed changes in the auxiliary requests.

The Court interpreted “clay material” without limitation to hydrated or dehydrated forms and “binder” purely by its function of adhering clay to the gauze substrate, irrespective of the type of bond. This broad interpretation, while potentially favourable for infringement, equally broadened the scope of anticipating prior art.

Division

Local Division Hamburg

UPC number

UPC_CFI_685/2024, UPC_CFI_157/2025

Type of proceedings

Infringement action and counterclaim for revocation

Parties

Claimant: Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC

Defendant: Speed Care Mineral GmbH

Patent(s)

EP 2 077 811

Jurisdictions

Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Portugal, Sweden

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 8(5) RoP, R. 19.7 RoP, R. 30(1) RoP, R. 30(2) RoP, R. 263 RoP, Art. 47(1) UPCA, Art. 69(1) UPCA, Art. 54 EPC, Art. 56 EPC, Art. 123(2) EPC, Art. 138(1) EPC, Art. 54(5) EPC, Art. 69 EPC


Was the article helpful?


Categories


Tags

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field