On September 1, 2026, the Düsseldorf Regional Division of the UPC issued a first-instance judgment in the patent infringement case brought by Aesculap AG against Shanghai Bojin Medical Devices Co., Ltd. and Shanghai International Holdings (Europe) Co., Ltd., among others. The court held that Shanghai Bojin’s EU authorized representative was liable as an intermediary and issued a conditional injunction, the effect of which may extend to the United Kingdom.

This case involved Patent EP2892442B1 (surgical torque transmission devices), with the accused infringing products being the “BoJin Diamond File” and the “BoJin Rose File.” Prior to the judgment, Defendant 1, Shanghai Bojin Medical Devices Co., Ltd., and Defendant 3, Shanghai Bojin Electronic Instrument Equipment Industry & Trade Co., Ltd.—both manufacturing entities—had reached a settlement with the plaintiff on August 27, leaving only Defendant 2, Shanghai International Holdings (Europe) Co., Ltd., the EU authorized representative, to continue participating in the proceedings.

Although the court found that the two products literally fell within the scope of protection of Patent Claim 1, it did not consider Defendant 2 to be a direct infringer or a joint infringer. Pursuant to the second sentence of Article 63(1) of the Agreement on the Unified Patent Court and based on its statutory regulatory role under the Medical Devices Regulation, the court classified Defendant 2 as an “intermediary.” The judgment noted that the authorized representative provided indispensable services for the products to obtain the CE mark, made a “decisive contribution” to the commercialization of the infringing products within the UPC territory, and was in a unique position to “render the sale of the relevant products unlawful simply by terminating its services.”

Regarding the territorial scope of the injunction, the court held that although the United Kingdom is no longer a member state of the UPC, it established international jurisdiction over Defendant 2 pursuant to Article 4 of the Brussels I Regulation (Revised), based on Defendant 2’s registered office in Hamburg, Germany, and clarified that this jurisdiction is not limited to acts occurring within the UPC territory. However, the court also established a condition precedent for the injunction: the UK portion of the patent in question must not be declared invalid by a competent UK court (at first instance or on appeal); if the patent is ultimately declared invalid, this condition would not be met, and the judgment would be void ab initio.

Furthermore, the duty of disclosure was explicitly excluded from the UK, as the court found that the plaintiff had failed to demonstrate that UK substantive law permits the imposition of such remedies on intermediaries. Establishing jurisdiction does not automatically extend all remedies across national borders; each remedy must be examined on a case-by-case basis to determine whether the laws of the target country support it.

Pursuant to the regulations, an appeal against this judgment may be filed with the UPC Court of Appeal within two months of service. IP Finance will continue to monitor subsequent developments.

Scan the QR code to access the full text of the ruling.