Ottobock v BrainPortfolio (CFI, 25 February 2026)

Date	25 February 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application for provisional measures
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_1927/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_1927/2025
Parties	Ottobock SE & Co. KGaA v. BrainPortfolio Inc

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

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

7 May 2026 : Ottobock v BrainPortfolio (CFI, 7 May 2026) UPC_CFI_1927/2025

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_1927/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantOttobock SE & Co. KGaA3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantBrainPortfolio Inc.Follow 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

25 February 2026 Ottobock v BrainPortfolio (CFI, 25 February 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_1927/2025
7 May 2026 Ottobock v BrainPortfolio (CFI, 7 May 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_1927/2025
La division locale rejette la demande de mesures provisoires : la contrefaçon de la revendication limitée n'est pas établie avec une certitude suffisante et un retard déraisonnable ne peut être exclu, la demanderesse supporte les frais et un remboursement provisoire.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application for provisional measures
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les parties sont convoquées à l'audience du 22 avril 2026, la réplique et la duplique devant être déposées les 9 et 23 mars 2026 sans prorogation possible, et l'adjonction d'un juge technicien est demandée.
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 3 001 984 B1 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Ottobock v BrainPortfolio (CFI, 7 May 2026) cited in this record

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 3 001 984 B1`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Ottobock v Wilhelm Julius Teufel (CFI, 7 May 2026) · Ottobock v BrainPortfolio (CFI, 7 May 2026)	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.