Opens in a new tab

MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v Advanced Bionics (CFI, 10 July 2024)

Date10 July 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric Order
Registry referenceORD_35569/2024
PartiesMED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v. Advanced Bionics GmbH, Advanced Bionics Sarl , Advanced Bionics AG

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 10 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_410/2023, ACT_585052/2023, CC_15513/2024, ORD_35569/2024), the Mannheim Local Division (P. Tochtermann, presiding, H. Kircher, rapporteur, A. Kupecz) referred to the Paris Central Division the counterclaim for revocation filed by Advanced Bionics GmbH and Advanced Bionics Sarl and MED-EL’s application to amend EP 4 074 373, in the infringement action brought by MED-EL. A revocation action by Advanced Bionics AG had been pending before the Central Division since 27 September 2023 (UPC_CFI_338/2023). Leave to appeal was refused.

Question

Must a local division seised of a counterclaim for revocation hear it itself where a revocation action against the same patent, brought by another defendant, is already pending before the Central Division?

Decision

The panel considers that, as a rule, the local division should hear the counterclaim itself, but here it exercises its power of referral under Art. 33(3)(b) UPCA. The main ground is the efficient conduct of proceedings: the Central Division already has almost identical grounds of revocation before it, its written procedure is closed and the oral hearing is set for 29 October 2024. The defendants’ objections based on the risk of divergent interpretation, the change to English and the advanced stage of the central proceedings are rejected. The application to amend follows the counterclaim, as it is the patentee’s defence to it.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 33(3) and (5)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 30, 37.2, 39 and 340, Preamble (point 4)

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.


Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La division locale renvoie la demande reconventionnelle en nullité et la demande de modification du brevet à la division centrale, déjà saisie de moyens presque identiques, pour des raisons d'efficacité. L'appel n'est pas autorisé.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 4 074 373
Mri-safe disk magnet for implants
recorded proprietor: MED EL Elektromedizinische Geraete GmbH
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 9 other decision(s): Advanced Bionics v MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte (CFI, 26 December · MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte v Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology (C · MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte v Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology (C · Advanced Bionics v MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte (CoA, 3 July 2025 · MED-EL v Advanced Bionics (CFI, 28 May 2025) · Advanced Bionics v MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b. · Advanced Bionics v MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b. · Advanced Bionics v MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte (CFI, 15 April 20
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.