Opens in a new tab

LiNA Medical v Schultz Medical (UK) (CFI, 19 December 2025)

Date19 December 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1598/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_1598/2025
PartiesLiNA Medical AG v. Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.

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

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 19 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1598/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered full disclosure to LiNA Medical and its representatives of the expert’s detailed description following evidence preservation and inspection measures carried out at Schultz Medical (UK)’s booth at the MEDICA trade fair, under EP 2 593 025 B1. The order of 18 November 2025 provided for the defendant to be heard on its confidentiality interests, but no representative logged into the case management system (CMS) despite the access code handed over on service (paragraphs 3 to 6).

Question

Must the Court delay disclosure of the expert’s description in order to hear, on confidentiality, a defendant that has appointed no representative in the CMS?

Decision

The defendant can only be heard through the CMS. Service on paper, with translations, would cause unreasonable delay (paragraph 8). Informed on service of the order and the access code, the defendant had enough time to appoint a representative. Its failure to do so cannot prejudice the applicant (paragraph 9). The judge orders disclosure of the unredacted description and annexes, lifts the confidentiality obligation vis-à-vis the applicant and starts the time limit for the main action (31 calendar days or 20 working days) from upload of the order to the CMS (paragraphs 10 and 11).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 60(8)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 194, 196, 197, 198.1 and 199

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Order to preserve evidence (UPC).

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Evidence Before Argument: The French Weapon Foreign Patent Holders Forget (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_1598/2025 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. 18 November 2025 LiNA Medical v Schultz Medical (UK) (CFI, 18 November 2025) Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 · UPC_CFI_1598/2025

    La division locale de Düsseldorf ordonne sans audition l'inspection du morcellateur MORCELLIX exposé au MEDICA, avec remise d'un échantillon à un expert ou, à défaut, saisie, sans garantie, la contrefaçon étant rendue vraisemblable par l'examen d'un produit identique acquis hors du territoire.

  2. 19 December 2025 LiNA Medical v Schultz Medical (UK) (CFI, 19 December 2025) Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 · UPC_CFI_1598/2025

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La description de l'expert est communiquée intégralement au demandeur, la défenderesse n'ayant désigné aucun représentant dans le CMS malgré le code d'accès reçu lors de la signification, ce qui l'empêche de faire valoir ses intérêts de confidentialité.
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 2 593 025 B1Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): LiNA Medical v Tonglu Qianyan Medtech (CFI, 19 December 2025) · LiNA Medical v Tonglu Qianyan Medtech (CFI, 18 November 2025) · LiNA Medical v Schultz Medical (UK) (CFI, 18 November 2025)
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.