Teleflex Life Sciences II LLC v. Speed Care Mineral GmbH, UPC CFI Hamburg LD, 27 April 2026
This decision of the Hamburg Local Division concerns an infringement action and counterclaim between Teleflex Life Sciences and Speed Care Mineral relating to a patent for haemostatic agents and devices for treating bleeding wounds. Teleflex, a US-based company, alleged that Speed Care’s haemostatic dressing infringed its patent, EP 2 077 811 (“EP 811”). EP 811 concerns a haemostatic device comprising a flexible gauze substrate, a clay material and a binder to adhere the clay to the gauze. When used to treat a heavily bleeding wound, the clay material comes into contact with blood to promote clotting. Speed Care, based in Germany, denied the allegation of infringement and counterclaimed for invalidity.
A key procedural issue which arose was whether Teleflex’s application to amend its patent was admissible under Rule 30.1 RoP, given that it had included 51 auxiliary requests. The Court held that the admissibility of a large number of auxiliary requests depends on the circumstances of the case. In light of the number of challenges raised by Speed Care, as well as there being several prior art documents, the Court considered that 51 auxiliary requests was reasonable. It also noted that Teleflex’ auxiliary requests could be split into two groups – one relating to the clay material and its medical use, and a second relating to the haemostatic device – thereby reducing the burden on Speed Care when responding.
On the merits, although EP 811 was found to be sufficiently disclosed, the Court held that it lacked novelty and, in the alternative, inventive step. Since the prior art disclosed haemostatic devices comprising clay materials applied to bandages and the use of various binders, all key elements of the claimed invention were considered to be directly and unambiguously disclosed and EP 811 was held to be invalid.
A copy of the Order can be found here.
