2025-10-17 - LD Munich - Onward Medical v. Niche Biomedical - UPC_CFI_693/2025

GERMAN 1. (Hilfs-)Anträge, mit denen im Verfahren des einstweiligen Rechtsschutzes nach Art. 62 EPGÜ Verfügungsanträge auf der Grundlage einer von der erteilten Fassung des Verfügungspatents abweichenden (alternativen) Anspruchsfassung geltend gemacht werden, um bestehenden Zweifeln am Rechtsbestand zu begegnen, sind in der Regel zurückzuweisen. 2. Wird vom Patentinhaber (hilfsweise) eine Änderung der Anspruchsfassung eines Patentes für erforderlich gehalten, bedeutet dies, dass das Patent in seiner er-teilten Fassung wahrscheinlich nicht gültig ist. Das Gericht kann in diesem Fall von der für das Verfahren nach Art. 62 EPGÜ allein maßgeblichen Gültigkeit des Patentes in der erteilten Fassung regelmäßig nicht überzeugt sein. ENGLISH: 1. If the patent proprietor considers it necessary (alternatively) to amend the wording of a patent claim, this means that the patent in its granted form is probably not valid. In this case, the court cannot be convinced of the validity of the patent in its granted form, which is the only relevant factor for the proceedings under Article 62 EPC. 2. If the patent proprietor considers it necessary (alternatively) to amend the wording of a patent claim, this means that the patent in its granted form is probably not valid. In this case, the court cannot be convinced of the validity of the patent in its granted form, which is the only relevant factor for the proceedings under Article 62 EPC.

The Munich LD rejected ONWARD Medical’s PI application for EP 3 421 081 B1 (neuromodulation system) after finding that claim 1 lacks novelty over the 'Yoo' prior art, which anticipates all claim features including spatial stimulation components (electrode row activation), temporal components (stepped timing protocols), and time-varying stimulation parameters (frequency, amplitude, pulse width). The court established that auxiliary requests seeking PI based on amended claims are inadmissible: if the patentee considers amendment necessary, this concedes the patent in granted form is probably invalid, and R. 211.2 RoP refers only to 'the patent concerned' in its granted form. The court also rejected the defendant’s EUR 168,000 provisional cost reimbursement claim as unsubstantiated and inconsistent with amounts claimed in related filings.