Teleflex Life Sciences II v Speed Care Mineral (CFI, 27 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 27 April 2026 in the infringement action UPC_CFI_685/2024 and the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_157/2025, the Hamburg Local Division holds that Speed Care Mineral’s counterclaim succeeds and that Teleflex Life Sciences II’s action against the SpeedM haemostatic dressing must fail (paragraph 35). Claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 of EP 2 077 811 B1, on clay-based haemostatic agents, are found to lack novelty over D3 and, in the alternative, inventive step. The decision is also of procedural interest: 51 auxiliary requests are admitted, but a late amendment of the patent and the extension of the counterclaim to claim 15 are refused.

Facts and procedure

Teleflex, the registered proprietor, sued Speed Care Mineral for infringement on 11 November 2024, relying on claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9, in ten states, its application for provisional measures was dismissed on 21 February 2025. On 24 February 2025, Speed Care Mineral counterclaimed for revocation of the same claims. Teleflex filed 51 auxiliary requests on 25 April 2025, then a further application to amend on 1 September 2025, on 1 October 2025, the defendant sought to extend its counterclaim to claim 15. The oral hearing took place on 23 January 2026.

The applicable law

The registered proprietor’s entitlement is presumed (Rule 8.5(c) RoP). Later applications to amend are at the Court’s discretion (Rule 30.2), and an amendment of a party’s case is refused for lack of diligence or unreasonable hindrance to the other party (Rule 263). On the merits, the decision applies Articles 54, 56, 69, 84 and 123(2) EPC and Article 65 UPCA.

Question

Are the asserted claims novel and inventive over D3, and to what extent may the parties, during the proceedings, multiply auxiliary requests or extend their case?

Decision

The presumption arising from the register is not rebutted (paragraphs 38 to 44). The 51 auxiliary requests are admitted, given the complexity of the technology, the number of prior art documents and objections, and their structure in two lines of defence (paragraphs 47 to 50). The application to amend of 1 September 2025 is dismissed for lack of justification and because it complicates the case (paragraphs 54 to 59), and the extension to claim 15 is refused, since that claim could have been attacked from the outset (paragraphs 60 to 63). On the merits, D3 (WO 2006/088912), published before the priority date, discloses a gauze dressing impregnated with clay and chitosan, the latter acting as a binder, so that claim 1 and the dependent claims lack novelty (paragraphs 128 to 143), in the alternative, D3 combined with N2 renders the invention obvious (paragraphs 146 to 156). Auxiliary requests 1 to 27 do not meet Article 54(5) EPC (paragraphs 162 to 167) and requests 1a to 26a fail, in particular for intermediate generalisation contrary to Art. 123(2) EPC (amendments F and G, request 26a) or lack of inventive step over D3 (amendments H to J) (paragraphs 106 and 208 to 242).

The infringement action is dismissed without examining infringement, since the patent is revoked (paragraph 244). The order revokes the patent as regards claims 1, 2, 3, 7 and 9 for the ten states concerned, rejects the application to amend of 1 September 2025 and the extension of the counterclaim to claim 15, dismisses the infringement action, orders Teleflex to bear all costs (Art. 69(1) UPCA) and sets the value of each action at EUR 1,000,000, having regard to the defendant’s small size but the ten countries covered (paragraph 248), exhibits in German need not be translated.

Key points for practice

• A large number of auxiliary requests may be admitted if it answers a multiplicity of attacks and remains structured (paragraphs 47 to 50).
• A later application to amend must be justified by identified new matters and must simplify the dispute (paragraphs 58 and 59).
• The counterclaimant must target all relevant claims from the start: a late extension is refused under Rule 263 RoP (paragraphs 60 to 63).
• Practical point: as defendant, fix the scope of the attacked claims in the counterclaim itself, as patentee, build auxiliary requests in coherent lines rather than amending the patent mid-proceedings.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 47(1), 48(2), 54, 65(1) and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 8.5, 19.7, 25.1, 30.2, 44 and 263

European Patent Convention

Art. 54, 56, 69, 84, 123(2), 138(1)

Case law cited

including Amgen v Sanofi, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2024, Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 25 November 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, 10x Genomics v Nanostring, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024

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.