MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. v Advanced Bionics (CFI, 22 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order that bears no date in its text (published as of 22 February 2024), the Mannheim Local Division, seised by MED-EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellschaft m.b.H. of an infringement action on EP 4 074 373 against three Advanced Bionics companies (UPC_CFI_410/2023), refused to refer the case to the Paris Central Division, where Advanced Bionics AG had earlier brought a revocation action (UPC_CFI_338/2023), and refused a stay. It granted leave to appeal. The order shields the claimant’s choice of forum against a joint hearing imposed under Rule 340 RoP.

Question

Does Rule 340 RoP allow an infringement action pending before a local division to be heard together, before the central division, with an earlier revocation action against the patentee’s wishes, and should the proceedings be stayed?

Decision

The division held that the second sentence of Rule 340.1 RoP requires Article 33 UPCA to be respected: the patentee had chosen the local division and objected to referral, so that choice could not be taken away after the event, and an interpretation consistent with the Agreement (Rule 1.1 RoP) led to the same result. In the alternative, it declined a joint hearing as a matter of discretion, since the revocation action was further advanced and referral would mean a switch to English (Art. 49(6) UPCA). It left open whether Article 33(5) applies, two defendants not being parties to the revocation action, and what a joint hearing means. A stay pending appeal was refused, an appeal having no suspensive effect (Art. 74(3) UPCA, Rule 295(c) RoP), the other stay requests were reserved until after the written procedure (Rule 118.2(b) RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a defendant sued before a local division cannot rely on Rule 340 RoP to pull the infringement action into the central division hearing its own revocation action.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(1), (3), (4) and (5), Art. 49(6) and Art. 74(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 1.1, 75, 118.2, 295 and 340

Related decisions

• Advanced Bionics AG v MED-EL, 26 December 2024, Central Division decision on the merits in the related revocation action.

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.