Ottobock v Wilhelm Julius Teufel (CFI, 7 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 7 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_1928/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division rejects Ottobock’s application for provisional measures based on EP 3 001 984 B1 against Wilhelm Julius Teufel GmbH, distributor of the ‘Kneuro microprocessor’ prosthetic knee system (models BR4B/BR4C) made by BrainRobotics, and MedEnvoy Global BV, EU authorised representative under the Medical Devices Regulation 2017/745. Infringement is not shown with sufficient certainty, and an unreasonable delay cannot be ruled out. The order, issued the same day as a parallel order (UPC_CFI_1927/2025), sets out in its headnotes how the burden of pleading and proof is allocated as to when the applicant knew, or should have known, of the infringement.

Facts and procedure

The patent concerns the control of an orthopaedic joint of the lower limb by means of an adjustable actuator in non-level walking situations. At the hearing of 22 April 2026, Ottobock made a limited claim 1 (prosthetic knee, special function of alternating stair ascent) its main request, which the Division admits (paragraphs 56 to 60). A late submission by the respondents is admitted given the identical facts and the joint hearing (paragraphs 57 to 59). After its presentation at Expolife in Kassel in March 2025, the product was shown by Teufel to a dealer, then in Cannes in April and at ISPO in Stockholm in June 2025, with a first delivery to German customers on 24 May 2025, professionals at two companies in Ottobock’s own network were certified on the product in July and August 2025 (paragraphs 13 to 16). Ottobock argued that it had full knowledge of the infringement only on 4 December 2025, after purchasing the product and running gait-lab tests, its staff at the trade fairs not being responsible for intellectual property. The respondents also challenged the validity of the limited claim (paragraphs 40 to 46).

The applicable law

Provisional measures fall under Art. 62 UPCA and Rules 206 et seq. RoP. The Court must be satisfied with a sufficient degree of certainty that the patent is infringed (Rule 211.2 RoP) and takes into account any unreasonable delay in seeking the measures (Rule 211.4 RoP). Claim scope is assessed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. Rule 211.1(d) RoP allows a provisional reimbursement of costs to be awarded to the respondent.

Question

Does the accused device, with sufficient certainty, implement switching criteria based on a natural movement, and did the applicant act with the required diligence?

Decision

The skilled person is a team of a mechanical or mechatronics engineer with a medical-device focus and a software engineer (paragraph 63). Read in light of the description, the claimed criteria must reflect a natural movement sequence, to the exclusion of deliberate, unusual switching movements (paragraphs 71 to 83). As the device’s initiating movement (the ‘donkey kick’) is deliberate and marked, infringement is not established. The instructions for use and the video do not alter this (paragraphs 84 to 87).

On urgency, the applicant does not show why it could not have known of the potentially infringing features by early July 2025, even assuming that tests after the October 2025 purchase were needed, it could and should have applied by mid or late October 2025 (paragraphs 89 to 97, 107 and 108). Ottobock had been monitoring the market since early 2025 and a first internal purchase attempt had failed in January 2025 (paragraph 98), at the latest after ISPO in June 2025, where a manager of a subsidiary involved in developing the competing Genium X4 had learned of the product’s technical configuration, it had enough information to pursue its enquiries (paragraphs 100 and 101). The user manual had been online since May 2025, professionals in its own network had been certified on the product in July and August 2025, and Ottobock did not explain whether and why a purchase failed during that period (paragraphs 102 to 106). Necessity and the balance of interests are not reached. The applicant bears the costs and must pay the respondents EUR 40,651.20 as a provisional reimbursement (paragraphs 110 to 112), the value in dispute is set at EUR 1,500,000.

Key points for practice

• The applicant must state when it knew, or should have known, of the potentially infringing product and show that it pursued the facts without delay.
• The respondents must plead and prove indications of earlier constructive knowledge. The applicant must then rebut them or explain itself.
• A claim to control criteria is read in light of the natural movement described, which may exclude a device relying on a deliberate switching gesture.
• Practical point: document the monitoring timeline (trade fairs, advertising, purchase, testing) from the competing product’s first appearance, as unexplained gaps count against the patentee.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 32(1)(c), 33(1)(a), 62, 69 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 206.2, 209.1, 211.1(d), 211.2, 211.3, 211.4, 213.2 and 220.1(c)

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and Protocol on its interpretation

Case law cited

ONWARD Medical v Niche Biomedical, Court of Appeal, 27 March 2026, 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), NanoString v 10x Genomics, Munich Local Division, 19 September 2023, Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2024, Magna v Valeo, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024), Ballinno v UEFA, Hamburg Local Division, 3 June 2024, Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024), Barco v Yealink, Court of Appeal, 28 November 2025

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.