Labrador Diagnostics v bioMérieux (CFI, 28 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a decision of 28 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_315/2024), the Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed Labrador Diagnostics’ infringement action against six bioMérieux group companies, based on unitary patent EP 3 756 767 on modular point-of-care devices and directed at the VIDAS 3 instrument and its consumables. The counterclaim for revocation had been referred to the Milan Central Division, which upheld the patent in amended form. The panel held that the claimed « device » requires sub-components that are spatially linked, which is not the case where sample tubes and reagent strips sit in separate units of the instrument.

The decision matters for practitioners in three respects: it shows the practical effect on a bifurcated infringement action of an amendment obtained in Milan, it rejects a purely functional reading of a structural feature, and it leaves no room for equivalence where even the broad construction does not lead to infringement.

Facts and procedure

Labrador Diagnostics, proprietor of EP 3 756 767, sued bioMérieux SA and its German, Italian, Austrian, Portuguese and Dutch subsidiaries. The defendants counterclaimed for revocation (UPC_CFI_571/2024), and at the claimant’s request the Local Division referred the counterclaim to the Milan Central Division by order of 23 April 2025. By decision of 23 October 2025 the Central Division amended the patent in accordance with auxiliary request 3, leaving only claim 1 (instrument) and claim 2 (method). bioMérieux SA had also filed an opposition at the EPO on 31 January 2025. The oral hearing took place on 27 November 2025. The claimant sought, among other things, an injunction, recall and destruction, damages and penalty payments.

The applicable law

Infringement is assessed against the patent as upheld by the Central Division, whose new claim wording the Local Division considered binding (paragraph 45). Offering a process for use under Art. 25(b) UPCA concerns the offering of a process carried out by third parties for whom the defendants are responsible (paragraph 65). Costs follow the event under Art. 69(1) UPCA and Rule 118.5, subject to the ceiling set by the scale adopted on 24 April 2023 under Rule 152.2 (paragraph 69).

Question

Does the VIDAS 3 instrument, in which sample tubes and reagent strips are handled in separate units, receive a « device » comprising both reagent units and a sample unit with a sample applied by a user, within the meaning of claim 1 as amended?

Decision

The panel held that the device need not be monolithic or a single housing, but its sub-components must be spatially linked so as to form a whole. A mere functional link is not enough (paragraphs 46 to 48). The sample unit covers only a sample applied by the user, not automatic application (paragraph 53).

The claimant failed to show that combination (paragraph 56). Its case treated the device as a functional feature and amounted to omitting a claimed feature, which the panel would not accept (paragraphs 58 and 59). The parties agreed that the sample vials and reagent strips are spatially separated (paragraph 60), and the new argument on the sub-racks advanced at the hearing did not change the outcome (paragraphs 61 and 62). As even the broad construction did not lead to infringement, there was no room for equivalence (paragraph 64). The method claim was infringed neither directly, there being in particular no offering by the defendants, nor indirectly (paragraphs 65 and 66). Entitlement was left open, and validity was no longer decisive (paragraphs 34 and 67).

The action was dismissed, the claimant was ordered to bear the costs, the value in dispute was set at EUR 5,000,000 and the ceiling for recoverable representation costs at EUR 600,000 (paragraphs 68 and 69).

Key points for practice

• An amendment obtained before the Central Division binds the Local Division hearing the infringement action and can, on its own, reshape the debate (paragraph 45).
• A structural feature such as a « device » cannot be read as purely functional: elements linked only by their function do not form a device (paragraphs 47 and 58).
• An infringement theory raised for the first time at the hearing runs against the front-loaded design of UPC proceedings (paragraph 62).
• Practical point: in bifurcated proceedings, a patentee should check that its infringement case still holds after a limiting amendment and adjust it in the subsequent written pleadings rather than at the hearing.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(b), 69(1), 73(1) and 82

Statute of the Court

Art. 37(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.5, 118.8, 152.2, 158.2, 220.1(a), 224.1(a), 352, 354 and 355.4

Case law cited

Ona Patents v Google, Düsseldorf Local Division, 15 January 2026, bioMérieux UK v Labrador Diagnostics, Milan Central Division, 23 October 2025

Related decisions

• bioMérieux UK v Labrador Diagnostics, 23 October 2025, decision of the Milan Central Division upholding the patent in amended form on the referred counterclaim.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.