UPC CFI 514/2025 – MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd.

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

Hamburg - Local Division UPC CFI 514/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 11/06/2025 APPLICANT MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. (Applicant) - Fürstenweg 77a - 6020 - Innsbruck – AT Represented by Anna- Katharina Dr. Friese-Okoro DEFENDANT Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. (Defendant) - No. 17 Longtan Road Cangqian Street, Yuhang District, - 0000 - Hangzhou City - CN Presently available between Wednesday June 11 and Saturday 14 June, 2025 at European Symposium on Pediatric Cochlear Implantation (ESPCI 2025) at Hannover Congress Centrum (HCC) Theodor-Heuss- Platz 1-3, 30175 Hannover. PATENT AT ISSUE: Patent no. Holder EP4074373 MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte GmbH PANEL: Panel of the Hamburg Local Division DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by the presiding judge Sabine Klepsch, the legally qualified judge and judge rapporteur Dr. Stefan Schilling and the legally qualified judge Stefan Johansson. SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Application for provisional measures 2 LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SHORT SUMMARY OF FACTS: The Applicant is the sole owner of the European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1 with unitary effect that is titled "MRI-SAFE DISK MAGNET FOR IMPLANTS" (hereinafter "patent in suit" or “patent”). The patent in suit was filed on 21 April 2011 with application number 22177545.5 and claims priority of the US 32715810 P of 23 April 2010 (IPC A61N 1/36, A61N 1/37 and A61N 1/372). The European Patent Office (EPO) published the grant of the patent in English on 27 September 2023. The patent relates to implantable medical devices, and specifically, to magnetic elements in implantable hearing prosthesis (i.e. Cochlear Implants [“CI”]) that allow for magnetic resonance imaging, see para. [0001] of the patent. The patent in suit seeks to design an implant system that avoids excessive surgery and, as a result, allow a patient with an implant to undergo a medical MRI scan examination without negative consequences. The relevant patent claim 1 is characterized by the following features: 1. An implant system for a recipient patient, said implant system comprising a magnetic arrangement, the arrangement comprising: 1.1 a planar coil housing (402) containing a signal coil for transcutaneous communication of an implant communication signal; 1.2 a first attachment magnet (401) within the plane of the coil housing (402), 1.2.1 rotatable therein, and 1.2.2 having a magnetic dipole parallel to the plane of the coil housing (402) for transcutaneous magnetic interaction with a corresponding second attachment magnet (404), 1.3. wherein the coil housing (402) is an implant coil housing for implantation under the skin of the patient and 1.4 wherein the signal coil is a receiver coil, and 1.5 wherein said first attachment magnet (401) has a planar disc shape or a cut away disc shape, With decision of 26 December 2024, the Paris Central Division of the Unified Patent Court maintained the patent in suit in the revocation proceeding between Advanced Bionics and the Applicant in amended version in accordance with auxiliary request 0a (ACT 576555/2023, UPC CFI 338 /2023). The feature as added by the Paris CD in its decision in the revocation proceeding between Advanced Bionics and the Applicant reads as follows: 1.6 wherein the implant system is one of a cochlear implant system, a middle ear implant system, a vestibular implant system, and a laryngeal pacemaker implant system. The Defendant is a Chinese company that engages in the development and manufacturing of neural electrical stimulation therapy and rehabilitation products with a particular focus on cochlear implant systems. The Defendant is currently operating in more than twenty countries worldwide but is – so far – not active on the European market. The Defendant will be an exhibitor 3 at the European Symposium on Pediatric Cochlear Implantation (ESPCI 2025) which takes place in Hannover, Germany from 11-14 June 2025. MOTIONS BY THE APPLICANT With its Application for provisional measures dated 10 June 2025, the Applicant is directed against the Defendant‘s cochlear implant system with the trade name “CS-30A”. The attacked embodiment concerns the part of the cochlear implant that is implanted between the skin and the underlying bone of the patient's skull. The Applicant claims that according to the Defendant’s website (nurotron.com), the product “CS30A” is a “third-generation” cochlear implant that is ultra-thin, requiring less bone removal, making surgery safer, and that allows supporting MRI scans of up to 3.0T without requiring removal of the internal component of the implant (exhibit HL 8). The Applicant asserts that the Defendant’s cochlear implant “CS-30A” contains rotatable magnets that fall under the scope of the patent in suit as they do not need to be removed surgically from the patient before an MRI scan is performed on that patient. Regarding the validity of the patent the Applicant refers to the decision of the Paris Central Division cited above, which is not final, and the decision of the EPO Opposition Division of 19 May 2025 (docket-no. M32237EP-A-A-A, exhibit HL 5) rejecting the requested revocation of the patent in its entirety. The Opposition Division maintained the patent in suit in its granted version and without the clarification, the Paris CD requested in its decision. Regarding the necessity to order the requested provisional measures the Applicant claims that the Defendant’s third-generation CI system is currently undergoing pre-market clinical trials in Europe; hence, an entry into the European market is imminent. Since the ESPCI is the most important trade show in the industry of cochlear implants, the requested provisional measures are urgently required and furthermore necessary in order to prevent irreparable harm to the Applicant. STATEMENT OF THE FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES: The Applicant requests, that I. the Defendant is ordered to cease and desist from a) offering, placing on the market, using, or importing, or storing for those purposes in the territory of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA, an implant system for a recipient patient, said implant system comprising a magnetic arrangement, the arrangement comprising: a planar coil housing containing a signal coil for transcutaneous communication of an implant communication signal; a first attachment magnet within the plane of the coil housing, rotatable therein, and having a magnetic dipole parallel to the plane of the coil housing for transcutaneous magnetic interaction with a corresponding second attachment magnet, wherein the coil housing is an implant coil housing for implantation under the skin of the patient and wherein the signal coil is a receiver coil, and wherein said first attachment magnet has a planar disc shape or a cut away disc shape; (claim 1 of EP 4 074 373 B1) 4 b) presenting, reporting or otherwise informing the public, either through its representatives or its personnel, or any other third parties, about any products with features in accordance with lit. I.a), in particular about the cochlear implant system with the trade name “CS-30A”, including reports about clinical experience of such products, during trade shows in the territory of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA, in particular during the European Symposium on Pediatric Cochlear Implantation in Hannover, Germany, from 11 –14 June 2025 (ESPCI 2025); II. the Defendant is ordered to deliver up to a bailiff, appointed by the Applicant, at their own expense, any product referred to in paragraph I. in stock and/or otherwise held, owned, or in the direct or indirect possession of the Defendant at the ESPCI 2025, Hannover Congress Centrum (HCC), Theodor-Heuss-Platz 1-3, 30175 Hannover, as well as any related promotional, advertising or informational material, for the purpose of preventing these items from being further exhibited at the ESPCI 2025, placed on the market and marketed through distribution channels during the ESPCI 2025 (Art. 62(3) UPCA; R. 211.1 (b) RoP); III. the Defendant is ordered to inform the Applicant within 4 weeks after service of the order, with a written statement, substantiated with appropriate documentation of the origin and distribution channels of the product referred to in paragraph I. (including the full names and addresses of the legal entities that are involved), the quantities received or ordered in the territory of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA, as well as the identity of any third person involved in the production or distribution of the product referred to in paragraph I. in territory of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA (Art. 67.1 UPCA); IV. the Defendant is ordered, subject to the final decision on the burden of costs, to pay an amount of EUR 67,000.00 as interim award of costs pending the Decision on the costs of the proceedings (R. 211.1 (d) RoP); V. in the event of non-compliance with the order under I., II. and III., the Defendant must pay to the Court a penalty payment of up to EUR 250,000.00 for each act of non-compliance (Art. 62(1) UPCA; R. 354.3 RoP); VI. the orders are immediately effective and enforceable, in the alternative, to permit the Applicant to provide security in the form of a bank guarantee issued by a bank licensed to do business in the EU in the event that a security is ordered and to determine the amount of the security separately for each claim awarded. VII. the Applicant may serve the orders in person by the Applicant’s authorized representatives to the Defendant directly at the trade fair ESPCI 2025 from 11 June 2025 to 14 June 2025 in Hannover, Germany at the following address: Hannover Congress Centrum (HCC), Theodor-Heuss-Platz 1-3 30175 Hannover VIII. the Court issues the order without hearing the Defendant (R. 212.1 RoP) 5 REASONS FOR THE ORDER: The admissible application for provisional measures is well-founded with regard to an infringement of claim 1 in the version amended by the Paris Central Division. I. As sole owner of the patent in suit with unitary effect the Applicant is entitled to bring actions to the Court, Art. 47 (2) UPCA in conjunction with R. 8.5 (a) and (c) RoP. II. The Applicant has sufficiently proven that the Defendant is about to present the attacked embodiment on a trade fair in Hannover and that the attacked embodiment makes use of all features of claim 1 in the form upheld by the Paris CD. 1. The patent relates to implantable medical devices, and specifically, to magnetic elements in implantable hearing prosthesis (i.e. Cochlear Implants [CIs]) that allow for magnetic resonance imaging, cf. para. [0001] of the patent. Cochlear Implants typically include an external transmitter coil housing, worn on the outside of the head; and a corresponding receiver system, surgically implanted under the patient’s skin (between the skin and the skull bone, behind the ear), see para. [0002]. Both, the external and the internal part have attachment magnets to hold the external part magnetically in place over the implant. The attachment magnets have a conventional disk-shape and a north-south magnetic dipole that is perpendicular to the skin of the patient. A problem arises when the patient undergoes magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) examination as described in para. [0003]. The magnet of the internal part of conventional implants interacts with the external magnetic field applied for the MRI which may lead to negative consequences for the patient. The external magnetic field may create a torque on the internal magnet, which may displace the internal magnet or the entire implant housing, thereby damage adjacent tissue in the patient, and cause them pain. The patent in suit seeks to design an implant system that avoids excessive surgery and, as a result, allow a patient with an implant to undergo an MRI examination without negative consequences. 2. Of special interest is feature group 1.2 of the patent in suit: 1.2 a first attachment magnet (401) within the plane of the coil housing (402), 1.2.1 rotatable therein, and 1.2.2 having a magnetic dipole parallel to the plane of the coil housing (402) for transcutaneous magnetic interaction with a corresponding second attachment magnet (404), Feature group 1.2 specifies a first attachment magnet positioned within the plane of the coil housing. The first attachment magnet serves to interact with a second attachment magnet creating an attractive force that secures the external and internal attachment transcutaneously through the skin. This feature is described in para. [0009] of the patent in suit: [0009] The first attachment magnet may be adapted to rotate within the coil housing in response to an external magnetic field, and there may be a lubrication coating covering at least a portion of the first attachment magnet and reducing friction between the first 6 attachment magnet and the coil housing to promote the rotation of the first attachment magnet. At least one of the attachment magnets may have a planar disc shape, a rectangular beam shape, a cylindrical beam shape, or a cut away disc shape. Or at least one of the attachment magnets may comprise a pair of complementary cylindrical attachment magnets, which optionally may further include a magnetic flux guide connecting the pair of complementary cylindrical attachment magnets. It is to be noted that the first attachment magnet as claimed herein is limited to cases where the magnet has a planar disc shape or cut away disc shape. The person skilled in the art – who typically has a master's degree in physics and several years of working experience in the medical device industry – understands that the magnet is preferable disc shaped or has another shape as described in order to be rotatable within the plane of the coil housing. The patent teaches that the first attachment magnet is a magnetic dipole parallel to the plane of the coil housing. Because the magnetic dipole and thus the arrangement of the poles is parallel to the plane of the coil housing, the magnetization direction - and thus the preferred direction of the magnetic field of the dipole - is oriented in the plane of the coil housing, as can be seen in para. [0014]: [0014] A first attachment magnet 401 is located within the plane of the coil housing 402 and rotatable therein (e.g., a planar disk shape) has a magnetization direction with a magnetic dipole parallel to the plane of the coil housing 402. An external transmitter coil housing 405 with a corresponding second attachment magnet 404 with a similar magnetic dipole direction parallel to the plane of its coil housing 405 so that when placed on the skin of the recipient patient, their respective magnetic fields cause the two attachment magnets 401 and 404 to self-orient as described above to form a magnetic attraction connection between them. The first attachment magnet is rotatable in the plane of the coil housing. Para. [0015] and [0016] describe the situation when a patient’s head is exposed to the magnetic field of a MRI system, which is typically oriented substantially parallel to the sagittal plane of the patient, as shown in Figs. 5 and 6 of the patent. The additional feature 1.6 wherein the implant system is one of a cochlear implant system, a middle ear implant system, a vestibular implant system, and a laryngeal pacemaker implant system; limits scope of protection to implant systems being either (“one of…”) a cochlear implant system, a middle ear implant system, a vestibular implant system, or a laryngeal pacemaker implant system. 3. The legal validity of the patent is secured to the extent it is required for the issuance of a preliminary injunction due to the – for the patent owner – successful revocation and opposition proceedings. However, as the decision of the Paris CD is in force, this is the currently relevant version of the patent and not the version upheld by the EPO. Due to this fact, the request of the Applicant has to be modified encompassing also feature 1.6 as stated above. 7 With respect to the priority date in 2011 it is more likely than not that the two proceedings mentioned above covered all the relevant prior art documents and that the patent in suit will remain valid. 4. The Applicant has sufficiently demonstrated to the level required for provisional measures that it is more likely than not that the attacked embodiment “CS-30A” infringes claim 1 in the amended form of the patent in suit. The attacked embodiment concerns the part of the cochlear implant that is implanted between the skin and the underlying bone of the patient's skull. The Defendant prepares to offer this product under the name “CS-30A”. The Applicant has substantiated the imminent danger of infringement, because clinical trials have been conducted and the Defendant is awaiting market authorization. However, the rights of the Defendant are maintained by the Applicant’s obligation to provide for security within due course. The Applicant has further demonstrated based on the Defendant’s own product information (exhibit HL 8) and a video presenting the features of the attacked embodiment (exhibit group HL 9.1 – 9.9 and 9a) that the attacked embodiment makes use of all features of claim 1 (including feature 1.6). The attacked embodiment especially realizes feature 1.2.1. The magnet within is capable of rotating within the plane of the housing to follow the direction of the MRI scanner's magnetic field. In the advertising video and its transcript (Exhibit HL 9 and 9a), the Chief Technology Officer of the Defendant explains (minute 1:21 to minute 2:02), that the magnet does not flip due to an external magnetic field during an MRI. Instead, it does rotate under the influence of the MRI's magnetic field (transcript from the video section): “Now, with our latest design, with our most recent design, that is, the magnet, if it is not aligned with the magnetic field it will rotate. Our newly designed magnet is engineered such that its magnetic field the magnetic direction is aligned with the static magnetic field of the MRI scanner, following the same direction when the magnet aligns with the magnetic field. It does not need to flip itself. This alignment allows it to neutralize internal magnetic stresses— since like poles repel, the magnet only needs to slightly rotate to follow the direction of the MRI scanner's magnetic field, once aligned, no torque is generated on the implant eliminating this torque means the patient won't feel pain.” This statement indicates that that the magnet rotates in the plane of the housing, avoiding any “turn over” or out-of-plane rotation. That can be taken from the magnet's relatively large extension within the plane of the coil housing and the fact that the implant is designed for implantation under the skin. An out-of-plane rotation would result in the magnet, and consequently the implant, occupying a larger volume, which contradicts the intended design of the attacked embodiment. In addition, the statement indicates that the magnet of the attacked embodiment is a magnetic dipole. As the Chief Technology Officer of the Defendant explains in the section from the transcript from the video cited above, that the magnet's poles repel, causing the magnet to align with the MRI's magnetic field through rotation, it can be established, that in order to achieve alignment, the magnet has a preferred magnetic field direction determined by its poles, forming a magnetic dipole. As the attacked embodiment is a cochlear implant system feature 1.6 is also realized. 8 5. The Applicant has sufficiently proven that the Defendant is about to present the attacked embodiment on a trade fair in Hannover, which is already underway (R. 209.2 lit. b) RoP). The ESPCI 2025 program in the PDF version (Exhibit HL 14) shows that that the Defendant is going to advertise and promote the attacked embodiment “CS-30A (3.0 T)” during the Defendant’s Sponsor Session. “3.0 T” stands for the magnetic field of an MRI scan (including both 1.5 and 3.0 Tesla MRI scans). III. On this basis, the Court, exercising its discretion (R. 209.2 RoP), considers the issuance of an interim injunction to be appropriate and justified (Art. 62 (1), 25 UPCA), to the extent as can be seen from the operative part. 1. Pursuant to Art. 62(2) UPCA and R. 211.3 RoP, the Court shall have the discretion to weigh up the interests of the parties and, in particular, to take into account the potential harm for either of the parties resulting from the granting or the refusal of the injunction. The Court must in addition consider the time factor. More specifically, the Court must assess whether it is possible to await proceedings on the merits, or whether provisional measures are necessary (UPC Court of Appeal, order of 24 February 2025, UPC CoA 540/2024, APL 52692/2024, Biolitec v Light Guide et al, para. 19). Provisional measures will be necessary, for instance, where any delay would cause irreparable harm to the patent holder. Irreparable harm is, however, not a necessary condition for the ordering of provisional measures (UPC Court of Appeal, order of 25 September 2024 – UPC Co 182/2024,APL 21143/2024, para. 237 – Mammut v Ortovox; order of 24 February 2025, UPC CoA 540/2024, APL 52692/2024, Biolitec v Light Guide et al, para. 21). The necessity of provisional measures may also follow from the fact that there is direct competition between the attacked embodiment and the product of the patent holder (see UPC Court of Appeal, Biolitec v Light Guide et al, para. 26). In those cases granting provisional measures may be justified if they are necessary in order to maintain the status quo that existed immediately prior to the alleged infringement until the decision of the Court on the merits (UPC Court of Appeal, Mammut v Ortovox, para. 238 et seq; Biolitec v LightGuide et als, para. 28). These criteria are fulfilled in the present case. The Applicant has stated that the Defendant had not offered a product like the attacked embodiment on the European market, so far. The Applicant has shown that an entry into the European market is imminent and the presentation on the trade fair in Hannover is preparing the entry into the European market. 2. Art. 25 UPCA reserves the owner of the patent right to prevent the direct use of the invention. Direct use is defined in lit. a) encompassing making, offering, placing on the market or using a product which is the subject-matter of the patent, or importing or storing the product for those purposes. It does not give the owner the right to prohibit third parties to publicly describe technical features of an invention or to enter into scientific discussions with other experts or other members of the public. The boundary is there, where the third party is “offering” a specific (infringing) product. Therefore, the request in item I. b) has to be limited to the presentation of the attacked embodiment for the purpose of its (future) sales. As a rule, injunctions will cover the territory of those CMS for which the patent has effect, unless certain circumstances justify an exception (Art. 34 UPCA, UPC Court of Appeal, 30.04.2025 - 9 UPC CoA 768/2024, APL 64374/2024 – Insulet ./. EOFlow). The patent in suit is a European Patent with unitary effect. 3. The seizure order is based on Art. 62 para. 3 UPCA in conjunction with Art. R. 211.1 (b) of the Rules of Procedure. Such an order appears appropriate and necessary, taking into account the interests of the parties. It is not apparent that the Defendant has an interest in retaining copies of the attacked embodiments in its possession. 4. Insofar as the Hamburg Local Division has also threatened to impose penalty payments in the event of non-compliance, this order is based on R. 354.3 RoP. 5. The application for information is successful. According to the case law of the Court of Appeals communication of information pursuant to Art. 67 UPCA may also be ordered in the framework of provisional measures, always provided there is an urgent interest, and such measures are proportionate (UPC Court of Appeal, 30.04.2025 - UPC CoA 768/2024, APL 64374/2024 – Insulet ./. EOFlow). In view thereof, the LD Hamburg is of the opinion that the Applicant has a sufficient and urgent interest to obtain the requested information with respect to the origin and distribution channels of the attacked embodiments in the CMS in which the patent is in force. Enforcement of this order is, however, dependant on the provision of an enforcement security as ordered in the operational part, R. 211.5 RoP. 6. Due to the fact, that the Defendant is not domiciled within the European Union and its presence on the trade fair in Hannover, Germany, is limited to few days, the Court deems it appropriate that the Applicant is entitled to collect provisional reimbursement of costs from the Defendant, R. 211.1 (d) RoP. IV. The Court issued the provisional measures without first hearing the Defendant. The Defendant had not submitted a protective letter. The Applicant has credibly demonstrated that it would suffer irreparable damage as a result of a delay (R. 212.1 RoP). The ESPCI 2025 is an important leading trade fair with considerable relevance for the entire industry. It enables the Defendant to make contact with potential customers and thus establish its own market presence. It is obvious that the exhibition of the attacked embodiment at this trade fair can lead to a loss of sales or market share for the Applicant that can hardly be reversed. The products of both parties are substitutable; they are direct competitors. V. Where appropriate, the enforcement of a decision may, pursuant to Art. 82(2) UPCA, be subject to the provision of security or an equivalent assurance to ensure compensation for any damage suffered, in particular in the case of injunctions. For provisional measures, this is reflected in R. 211.5 RoP, first sentence, which states that the Court may order the applicant to provide adequate security for appropriate compensation for any injury likely to be caused to the defendant, which the applicant may be liable to bear in the event that the Court revokes the order for provisional measures. Furthermore, according to R. 352.1 RoP, decisions and orders may be subject to the rendering of a security (whether by deposit or bank guarantee or otherwise) by a party to the other 10 party for legal costs and other expenses and compensation for any damage incurred or likely to be incurred by the other party if the decisions and orders are enforced and subsequently revoked. Due to the high urgency of the present application and the intended service of the order on a trade fair with short duration, the Court deems is appropriate to have the order immediately enforceable and to order the Applicant to provide an enforcement security within 10 days. Otherwise, an effective enforcement of the order at the trade fair would be endangered. However, the right of the Defendant is maintained by the Applicant’s obligation to provide for security within due course. ORDER I. The Defendant is ordered to cease and desist from a) offering, placing on the market, using, or importing, or storing for those purposes in the territory of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA, an implant system for a recipient patient, said implant system comprising a magnetic arrangement, the arrangement comprising: a planar coil housing containing a signal coil for transcutaneous communication of an implant communication signal; a first attachment magnet within the plane of the coil housing, rotatable therein, and having a magnetic dipole parallel to the plane of the coil housing for transcutaneous magnetic interaction with a corresponding second attachment magnet, wherein the coil housing is an implant coil housing for implantation under the skin of the patient and wherein the signal coil is a receiver coil, and wherein said first attachment magnet has a planar disc shape or a cut away disc shape, wherein the implant system is one of a cochlear implant system, a middle ear implant system, a vestibular implant system, and a laryngeal pacemaker implant system; (claim 1 of EP 4 074 373 B1, as amended by Paris CD) b) presenting any products with features listed in paragraph I. lit. a) for the purposes mentioned therein, in particular the cochlear implant system with the trade name “CS-30A”, during trade shows in the territory of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA, in particular during the European Symposium on Pediatric Cochlear Implantation in Hannover, Germany, from 11 –14 June 2025 (ESPCI 2025); II. The Defendant is ordered to deliver up to a bailiff, appointed by the Applicant, at their own expense, any product referred to in paragraph I. in stock and/or otherwise held, owned, or in the direct or indirect possession of the Defendant at the ESPCI 2025, Hannover Congress Centrum (HCC), Theodor-Heuss-Platz 1-3, 30175 Hannover, as well as any related promotional or advertising material, for the purpose of preventing these items from being further exhibited at the ESPCI 2025, placed on the market and marketed through distribution channels during the ESPCI 2025 (Art. 62(3) UPCA; R. 211.1 (b) RoP); 11 III. The Defendant is ordered to inform the Applicant within 4 weeks after service of the order, with a written statement, substantiated with appropriate documentation of the origin and distribution channels of the product referred to in paragraph I. (including the full names and addresses of the legal entities that are involved), the quantities received or ordered in the territory of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA, as well as the identity of any third person involved in the production or distribution of the product referred to in paragraph I. in territory of the Contracting Member States of the UPCA (Art. 67.1 UPCA); IV. The Defendant is ordered, subject to the final decision on the burden of costs, to pay an amount of EUR 67,000.00 as interim award of costs pending the Decision on the costs of the proceedings (R. 211.1 (d) RoP); V. In the event of non-compliance with the order under I., II. and III., the Defendant must pay to the Court a penalty payment of up to EUR 250,000.00 for each act of non-compliance (Art. 62(1) UPCA; R. 354.3 RoP); VI. The orders are immediately effective and enforceable. The Applicant is ordered to provide enforcement security within 10 days after the service of this order in the form of a deposit or a bank guarantee, the latter issued by a bank licensed to do business in the European Union, in the amount of 250.000 EUR. If the applicant fails to comply with this request within the specified period, the enforceability shall be suspended until the security has been provided in full. VII. The Applicant may serve this order in person by the Applicant’s authorized representatives to the Defendant directly at the trade fair ESPCI 2025 from 11 June 2025 to 14 June 2025 in Hannover, Germany at the following address: Hannover Congress Centrum (HCC), Theodor-Heuss-Platz 1-3 30175 Hannover. VIII. For the remaining parts the application for provisional measures is dismissed. NOTE ON DELIVERY: The present order is to be served in person at the "ESPCI 2025" trade fair in Hannover by the Applicant's authorized representatives together with a copy of the application for the present order, including the evidence and other documents on which the order is based (R. 212.2, 276.1 RoP). REFERENCE TO THE RIGHT TO REVIEW: The Defendant may request a review of the present order within 30 days of the enforcement of the measure (Art. 62(5), 60(6) UPCA, R. 212.3, 197.3 RoP). INFORMATION ABOUT THE APPEAL: The Defendant may appeal against this order within 15 days of its notification (Art. 73(2)(a), 62 UPCA, R. 220.1(c), 224.2(b) RoP). 12 NOTICE THAT THE MAIN PROCEEDINGS MUST BE INITIATED WITHIN A TIME LIMIT If the main proceedings are not commenced within a maximum period of 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is the longer, from the date of service on the defendant, the court may, at the request of the defendant, order that the present order be revoked or otherwise cease to have effect (Art. 62(5), 60(8) UPCA, R. 213.1 RoP). ORDER DETAILS Order no. ORD 27826/2025 in ACTION NUMBER: 27414/2025 UPC number: UPC CFI 514/2025 Action type: Application for provisional measures (RoP206) ISSUED IN HAMBURG, 11 JUNE 2025 Presiding judge Sabine Klepsch Judge rapporteur Dr. Stefan Schilling Legally qualified judge Stefan Johansson For the sub-registry

Key Holdings

• The Applicant, as the sole owner of European Patent EP 4 074 373 B1 with unitary effect, is entitled to bring actions to the Court.
• The Defendant's 'CS-30A' cochlear implant system is found to likely infringe claim 1 of the patent (as amended by the Paris Central Division) by realizing all its features, including a rotatable, in-plane magnetic dipole.
• Provisional measures are deemed appropriate and justified to prevent irreparable harm to the Applicant, given the Defendant's imminent entry into the European market and direct competition at a major trade fair.
• The Defendant is ordered to cease and desist from offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or storing infringing products, and from presenting them for sales purposes at trade shows in UPCA contracting member states.
• The orders are immediately effective and enforceable, subject to the Applicant providing an enforcement security of EUR 250,000 within 10 days.

Tags

• Infringement
• Interim Measures
• Medical Devices
• Trade Fair
• UPC
• Unitary Patent

Related Rules

• Art. 4 – Legal status
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 2 – Definitions
• Art. 3 – Scope of application
• Art. 6 – The Court
• Art. 8 – Composition of the panels of the Court of First Instance

Related Cases

• UPC_CFI_173/2024; 424/2024 – Nera v Xiaomi
• UPC_CFI_58/2024 – Lionra v Cisco
• UPC CFI 278/2023 – AGFA NV v Gucci
• App_55164/2024 UPC_CFI_525/2024 – Easee vs Visibly
• UPC_CFI_151/2024_Ballinno_Sec – Ballinno v UEFA (Local Division)