2026-06-10 - LD Düsseldorf - Siemens Healthcare et al. v. Siemens Healthcare et al. - UPC_CFI_758/2024

ENGLISH: The claimant’s legitimate interest in the publication of a decision (Art. 80 UPCA) may, depending on the circumstances of the individual case, follow from the fact that the defendant has marketed the attacked embodiment by explicitly referencing to the key technology protected by the patent.

The Düsseldorf Local Division decided an infringement action together with the counterclaim for revocation on the merits. It rejected every validity ground — insufficiency, added matter, invalid priority, lack of novelty and lack of inventive step — and maintained the patent as granted, so the auxiliary requests needed no examination. It found literal infringement of the apparatus claim on the strength of the Defendants' own advertising material, holding that an 'offering' under Art. 25(a) UPCA is an economic concept and that a device incorporating the claimed structural features infringes even as an inferior embodiment. It granted a permanent injunction over Germany, France and the Netherlands, rejecting a proportionality defence built on patients' interests, and granted the full Art. 67 UPCA information and accounting order, recall including from commercial end users, destruction of the products, a declaration of joint and several damages liability, and publication of the decision in restricted form. It refused permanent removal from the channels of commerce for want of concrete measures, destruction of dual-use manufacturing tools and advertising materials, an interim award of damages, and any order for enforcement security.