2026-04-27 - LD Hamburg - Teleflex Life Sciences Ii v. Speed Care Mineral - UPC_CFI_685/2024
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_685/2024
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Hamburg (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Final Decision
- Parteien:
- Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v. Speed Care Mineral GmbH
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-04-27 - LD Hamburg - Teleflex Life Sciences Ii
v.
Speed Care Mineral - UPC_CFI_685/2024
ENGLISH:
1. The inclusion of 51 auxiliary claims in the counterclaim for revocation may be
justified in individual cases where the legal basis of the patent in suit is subject to
multiple challenges.
2. An amendment to the counterclaim for revocation, adding a further claim to be
revoked, must be rejected if the patent proprietor otherwise would be put in a
situation where he/she would not be given sufficient time to properly address the
new attack.
notable
LD Hamburg (Klepsch presiding + JR) revoked claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 of Teleflex's EP 2 077 811 (clay-based hemostatic gauze, Quikclot product family) for ten territories on the counterclaim of Speed Care Mineral. The granted claims lack novelty over D3 (WO 2006/088912, Virginia Commonwealth University) and, in the alternative, lack inventive step over D3 in combination with N2 (WO 92/16681, Weyerhaeuser). Both subsets of 51 auxiliary requests failed: AR 1-27 are inadmissible as Art. 54(5) EPC second-medical-use claims because the device features (gauze, binder) take the claim out of the substance/composition category; AR 1a-26a fall variously to Art. 123(2) EPC added matter (most notably AR 26a: extracting the sponge feature from claim 44 without the release agent and other associated structural context is an impermissible intermediate generalization), to D3 novelty, or to D3+N2 obviousness. Two procedural holdings are headnoted: (i) 51 auxiliary requests can be reasonable in number where the patent is subject to multiple validity challenges (Art. 54/56 EPC, Art. 123(2) EPC, Art. 84 EPC, Art. 83 EPC) and the requests divide into intelligible subgroups (here a clay-material-and-medical-use line and a hemostatic-device line); (ii) a R. 263 RoP amendment to the counterclaim adding a further claim to be revoked must be rejected where it would not leave the patent proprietor sufficient time to address the new attack before the oral hearing. The Court applied the CoA's inventive-step framework from Amgen/Sanofi (UPC_CoA_528-529/2024) and Meril/Edwards (UPC_CoA_464/2024) and the added-matter direct-and-unambiguous test (UPC_CoA_764/2024), and rejected the subsequent-amendment application under R. 30.2 RoP (CD Paris UPC_CFI_412/2023, UPC_CFI_255/2023; LD Düsseldorf UPC_CFI_733/2024, UPC_CFI_255/2025; LD Mannheim UPC_CFI_210/2023). Costs to claimant; value in dispute set at EUR 1,000,000 each.
Nichtigkeitsgründe
Art. 138 EPCNovelty
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 54 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 lack novelty over D3 (WO 2006/088912, Virginia Commonwealth University) — D3 discloses a gauze bandage impregnated with clay (kaolin/bentonite) plus chitosan and cellulose, with chitosan inherently acting as a binder when used as a coating [§§132-143].”
Inventive Step
Patent survived (this ground)Art. 56 EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“Alternatively to novelty, claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 lack inventive step over D3 + N2 (WO 92/16681, Weyerhaeuser): N2 explicitly teaches chitosan as a binder for adhering particles to fibres in wound dressings [§§144-155]. AR 1-27 inadmissible Art. 54(5) EPC; AR 1a-26a fail novelty/inventive step in addition to added matter [§§163-242].”
Added Matter
Partially invalid (this ground)Art. 123(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(c) EPC
“Granted claims survive Art. 123(2) EPC (feature 2.1 'flexible' is an inherent property of the gauze examples in the application; the binder feature was disclosed for clay in general in original claim 22) [§§107-130]. But AR 26a violates Art. 123(2) EPC — extracting the sponge feature from original claim 44/52 without the associated structural context (release agent, absorbent matrix, spatial arrangement) is an impermissible intermediate generalization [§§239-242].”
Insufficiency of Disclosure
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 83 EPC · Art. 138(1)(b) EPC
“Defendant's Art. 138(1)(b) EPC / Art. 83 EPC sufficiency attack rejected — patent specification provides examples (chitosan, polyvinyl alcohol) and the skilled person knows how to handle water-soluble binders (slurry method, drying) and binder-clay-gauze combinations [§§121-130].”
Non-patentable Subject Matter
Patent invalid (this ground)Art. 52(2) EPC · Art. 138(1)(a) EPC
“AR 1-27 fail Art. 54(5) EPC second-medical-use requirements: where device features (gauze, binder) contribute to the medical effect, the claim is not to a substance/composition for a specific use; the patent does not disclose a therapeutic or pharmacological insight that would make Art. 54(5) EPC applicable [§§163-167].”