biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, 2 April 2026)

Date	2 April 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_714/2024;UPC_CFI_155/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_714/2024 · UPC_CFI_155/2025
Parties	biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG v. Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.

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

In an order of 2 April 2026, issued in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_714/2024 and UPC_CFI_155/2025, the Munich Local Division refuses to stay the case pending the opposition against EP 3 685 783, even though the EPO Opposition Division revoked the patent after the UPC hearing. It gives its provisional view on validity and appoints a court expert. A revocation by the EPO that is not yet final does not, therefore, automatically call for a stay.

Question

Should proceedings be stayed under Rule 295(a) RoP where the EPO revokes the patent between the UPC hearing and the pronouncement, and how should technical points on which the parties’ tests conflict be resolved?

Decision

Rule 295(a) RoP is meant to align parallel EPO and UPC proceedings. Since the UPC hearing (17 December 2025) preceded the Opposition Division hearing (13 January 2026), a stay was first refused. Once the reasoned EPO decision was available, a stay was no longer warranted, as no Board of Appeal decision was expected soon and Rule 295(m) RoP did not require one. Provisionally, the panel considers the patent as granted invalid for added matter, but valid as amended by auxiliary request 10B, rejecting the lateness objection: the amendments responded to the EPO communication of 22 October 2025. As the parties’ tests are irreconcilable, an expert is appointed under Rule 185 RoP on three questions.

Key points for practice

Practical point: the timing of the UPC hearing relative to the Opposition Division hearing weighs heavily on a stay request, and auxiliary requests mirroring those filed at the EPO may be admitted late where they respond to an EPO communication.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 185 and 295(a) and (m)
European Patent Convention: Art. 76(1), Art. 123(2)

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: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

UPC_CFI_714/2024 official number
UPC_CFI_155/2025 official number

Follow these proceedings

Parties

claimantbiolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantLight Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.oFollow this party

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: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La demande de sursis fondée sur l'opposition est rejetée malgré la révocation non définitive du brevet par l'OEB, et un expert judiciaire est désigné sur trois questions techniques.
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 3 685 783 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 685 783`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_256/2025, · Biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CoA, 24 February 2025) · biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, 12 February 2025) · Bioletic Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, 5 September 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.