Teleflex Life Sciences II v Speed Care Mineral (CFI, 21 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order delivered on 21 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_701/2024, ORD_68880/2024), the Hamburg Local Division (Judges Klepsch, presiding and rapporteur, Schilling, Johansson and Meewisse) dismissed Teleflex Life Sciences II’s application for provisional measures against Speed Care Mineral based on EP 2 077 811, which concerns clay-based haemostatic agents. The applicant bears the costs and the value of the dispute was set at EUR 500,000.

The division ruled on neither validity nor urgency: the application failed on proof of infringement alone, since the presence of a binder in the contested dressing was not established. The order shows how much weight analytical reports carry in summary proceedings turning on a product’s composition.

Facts and procedure

The patent, granted on 10 November 2010 and upheld in EPO opposition proceedings, claims a device comprising a gauze substrate, a clay material (feature 2.2) and a binder adhering the clay to the gauze (feature 2.3), claim 9 specifying that the binder is chitosan. Teleflex alleged that the SpeedM emergency haemostatic dressing, which contains halloysite 7Å, infringed claim 1 and several dependent claims. It brought an infringement action on 11 November 2024 and applied for provisional measures on 18 November, relying on test reports. Speed Care Mineral disputed construction, infringement, validity, urgency and standing.

The applicable law

The division applied Art. 62(2) and (4) UPCA and Rules 209.2 and 211.2 RoP: the court must consider it at least more likely than not that the applicant is entitled to bring proceedings and that the patent is infringed. The standard of proof must be neither too high, given the urgency (CJEU, 28 April 2022, Phoenix Contact, C-44/21), nor too low, to protect the defendant. The burden of proving infringement lies on the applicant and shifts only where reasonable indications have been shown. Construction follows Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol, with the principles set out in 10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 and VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024.

Question

Had the applicant shown with a sufficient degree of certainty that the contested dressing includes a binder adhering the clay to the gauze?

Decision

No. Standing was accepted, Teleflex being registered as proprietor in several national registers. The division gave « clay material » a broad construction, not limited to hydrated clays, the passage of the description relied on setting out preferred embodiments rather than a definition. Halloysite 7Å literally met feature 2.2.

However, the presence of chitosan or any other binder was not proven: the 73.8% spectral match in the analytical report was insufficient and the attribution of one peak doubtful, the report drew methodological criticism (accreditation, sample identification, comparison of a finished product with a component), the absence of nitrogen on EDS analysis was inconclusive, and the photograph produced did not show a binder. Even leaving aside the defendant’s explanation based on mechanical adhesion, the burden of proof did not shift. Validity and the other requirements were therefore not examined.

Key points for practice

• In summary proceedings, the burden of proof shifts only once the applicant has put forward reasonable indications of infringement.
• Analytical reports on a finished product are closely scrutinised: method, laboratory accreditation and sample traceability.
• A favourable construction of one feature does not make up for a lack of proof on another.
• Practical point: where infringement turns on a product’s composition, consistent and methodologically sound analyses must be filed with the application.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 62(2) and (4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 209.2 and 211.2

European Patent Convention

Art. 69 and the Protocol on its interpretation

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 9

Case law cited

10x Genomics v NanoString, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024 (UPC_CoA_335/2023), VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024 (UPC_CoA_1/2024), Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 9 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_452/2023).

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.