Teleflex v Speed Care Mineral (UPC_CFI_701/2024)
Decision date:
21 February 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Teleflex brought an application for provisional measures (preliminary injunction) alleging infringement of its patent that protected clay-based hemostatic agents and devices incorporating such agents for the delivery to bleeding wounds. The invention was used to form clots in the case of bleeding.
- The Hamburg LD explained that the burden of proof for establishing patent infringement lies with the applicant. This burden is only reversed once the applicant has provided reasonable indications that an infringement has occurred. In applications for provisional measures, the court said that the burden of proof must not be set too high due to limited evidence, but not too low such that defendants are harmed by provisional measures being incorrectly granted.
- Teleflex had submitted an expert report and experimental data to demonstrate infringement. Speed Care had also submitted its own expert reports to refute the evidence and made a number of criticisms of Teleflex's evidence. The court decided that the evidence convincingly explained why Teleflex was wrong. The court stated that Teleflex had not demonstrated with the necessary certainty that the attacked embodiment contained a binder, and the reversal of the burden of proof did not apply.
- The court decided that Teleflex had not demonstrated with a sufficient degree of certainty that there was an infringement of the patent. As such, there was no need for the court to discuss validity of the patent and the other requirements for ordering a preliminary injunction. The preliminary injunction was refused.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.