MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v Advanced Bionics (CFI, 10 July 2024)
| Date | 10 July 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Mannheim (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Generic Order |
| Registry reference | ORD_35569/2024 |
| Parties | MED-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.
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
- Practical point: filing a central revocation action before the infringement action may lead to the counterclaim being referred to the Central Division, with a change of language.
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
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
Parties
- claimantMED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantAdvanced Bionics AG7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantAdvanced Bionics GmbH5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantAdvanced Bionics Sarl5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 4 074 373mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals v Pfizer Europe MA EEIG (CFI, 4 March 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.