Opens in a new tab

BTL Medizintechnik v Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems (CFI, 16 January 2026)

Date16 January 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionThe Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1048/2025
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-1048/2025
PartiesBTL Medizintechnik GmbH v. Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems S.L.

Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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

Contact the firm

English summary awaiting review. Read the French case note.

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_1048/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 16 January 2026 BTL Medizintechnik v Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems (CFI, 16 January 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1048/2025
  2. 13 August 2026 BTL Medizintechnik v Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems (CFI, 13 August 2026) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_1048/2025

    La division locale de La Haye déclare irrecevable la demande de remboursement des frais de justice déposée après la clôture de l’affaire, sans demande de réouverture, et autorise l’appel.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le désistement de l'action en contrefaçon, consenti par la défenderesse après transaction, est autorisé et la procédure est déclarée close, sans décision sur les frais.
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 4 146 335Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): BTL Medizintechnik v Lexter Microelectronic Engineering Systems (CFI,
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.