Teleflex Life Sciences II v Speed Care Mineral (CFI, UPC_CFI_1849/2026, 9 July 2026)
| Date | 9 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Hamburg (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Other |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1849/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_1849/2026 |
| Parties | Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v. Speed Care Mineral GmbH |
Summary pending review. Official UPC registry metadata imported on 24 September 2026.
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
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.
Parties
- claimantTeleflex Life Sciences II LLC5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSpeed Care Mineral GmbH5 decisions in the corpusFollow 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
No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Other
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Teleflex doit rembourser à Speed Care Mineral 211 000 € de frais (200 000 € de représentation et 11 000 € de frais de justice) dans les trois semaines de la signification.
- 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 2 077 811 B1mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Teleflex Life Sciences II v Speed Care Mineral (CFI, 27 April 2026) cited in this record
- Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, ORD_7951/2025, 22 April 2025) cited in this record
- Teleflex Life Sciences II v Speed Care Mineral (CFI, UPC_CFI_1861/2026, 9 July 2026) cites this decision
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 2 077 811 B1 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Teleflex Life Sciences II v Speed Care Mineral (CFI, 27 April 2026) · Speed Care Mineral v Teleflex Life Sciences II (CoA, 10 June 2026) · Teleflex Life Sciences II v Speed Care Mineral (CFI, 21 February 2025) | 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.