Munich UPC Division Clarifies Claim Interpretation for Medical Devices in Emboline v. AorticLab Dispute

In a recent decision by the Munich Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC), the court addressed a patent infringement dispute between Emboline Inc. and AorticLab srl concerning an embolic protection device. The cases, referenced as UPC_CFI_628/2024 and UPC_CFI_125/2025, centered on whether AorticLab’s device infringed Emboline’s patent claims, specifically those relating to a 'graspable structure' at one end of the device that is 'engageable by a hook.'

Emboline’s patent describes a medical device designed to be removed from a patient using a hook that engages with a specifically designed graspable structure. Emboline argued that AorticLab’s device also included a graspable feature. However, this feature could only be accessed by piercing an external mesh of the product to reach it with a hook. In contrast, the standard method for removing AorticLab’s device involves using a rod attached to one end, rather than a hook.

The court considered whether the presence of a graspable feature that could theoretically be engaged by a hook, but only through non-standard use, would constitute infringement. The court acknowledged that infringement is not automatically excluded simply because a device is normally operated differently from the patented method. However, the court emphasized that the product in question is a medical device, and thus, any alleged infringing use must align with professional medical practice and recognized rules of medical science.

The court found that using a hook to remove AorticLab’s device would require piercing the external mesh, which would damage the product. As such, this method was not considered a relevant or legitimate use in the context of normal professional practice. The court therefore construed the claim term 'engageable' to mean that the graspable structure must be specifically configured and designed for engagement by a hook, as described in the patent.

Based on this interpretation, the court concluded that AorticLab’s device did not fall within the scope of Emboline’s claimed invention. The graspable feature of the contested device was not designed to be engaged by a hook in the manner specified by the patent claims, and its removal method differed from that taught by Emboline’s patent.

This decision highlights the stricter approach the UPC may take when interpreting claim features related to medical devices. The court suggested that, had the device belonged to a non-medical field, the outcome regarding infringement might have been different.

The ruling serves as a reminder that, for medical devices, claim interpretation will often be closely tied to the normal and accepted practices of the medical profession. Features that are only accessible or usable through methods outside standard practice may not be considered when assessing infringement.

Parties involved in medical device patent disputes should be aware of the heightened scrutiny applied to claim features that relate to professional use and safety standards in the medical field.