German manufacturer free to supply wound care products to German Armed Forces

The German start-up Speed Care Mineral does not infringe a patent held by its major US competitor Teleflex. Judges Sabine Klepsch, Stefan Schilling, Stefan Johansson and Jeroen Meewisse denied patent infringement, further restricted the patent and rejected the counterclaim for revocation (case IDs: UPC_CFI_685/2024 and UPC_CFI_157/2025).

The panel had already rejected a request for preliminary injunction in February (case ID: UPC_CFI_701/2024). At that time, the value of the proceedings was set at €500,000. The value of the infringement proceedings is set at twice this amount. There are no parallel disputes. EP 207 7811 protects a clay-based haemostatic agent and devices for the delivery thereof and expires in July 2027.

In the life sciences sector, it is common practice to secure market exclusivity through patent infringement proceedings. Disputes between medical device manufacturers have also increased since the launch of the UPC. In the defence sector, however, it is the exception that patent disputes influence tenders, partly because the opportunities to file complaints and lawsuits during the tendering procedures are often sufficient for the parties and involve less effort.

Not the first

Most recently, however, rifle manufacturer Heckler & Koch used patent proceedings to secure its market share against the backdrop of a tender by the German Armed Forces. A patent infringement can exclude a manufacturer from a tender under certain conditions. Particularly in the defence sector with its long-term contracts, individual tenders often have a major influence on the market.

The wound care products at issue in this patent dispute are not intended solely for use by the military. However, this is an important market that also has a signalling effect for civilian applications. It is clear from the tender documents that the origin of the manufacturer plays an important role in the matrix used to evaluate the bids. When awarding contracts in the defence sector, it is customary to give preference to European companies to help ensure security of supply. The order is for 310,000 plus a further 60,000 wound care products.

This is the background against which Teleflex initiated patent infringement proceedings against Speed Care Mineral. The Hamburg local division, at the request of Speed Care Mineral, published the decision two days earlier so that the judgment is available prior to the submission deadline of the tender (case ID: UPC_CFI_685/2024 and UPC_CFI_157/2025).

European funding for German start-up

Speed Care Mineral claims to be the only manufacturer of emergency haemostasis compresses in the EU and manufactures its products entirely in Germany. The company was founded in 2017 and received European ERDF funding. The company sells wound compresses based on functionalised clay mineral as a haemostatic agent to stop heavily bleeding wounds, such as those that occur during military operations.

Teleflex is a listed US medical technology company with a large product portfolio. According to JUVE Patent research, the company is a market leader in the field of wound care for heavily bleeding wounds.

JUVE Patent is not aware of any parallel proceedings in other jurisdictions. It is currently not known whether Teleflex will appeal.

Advisory teams

Teleflex Life Sciences is working with a team from Grünecker in the proceedings, which includes Ulrich Blumenröder, Sebastian Ochs, Elvira Bertram, and Steven Zeman,

Also part of the team are patent attorneys Thomas Laubenthal and Alexander Stumvoll from the Munich office. The client relationship stems from previous infringement proceedings.

Speed Care Mineral relies on a team from the Düsseldorf boutique Wildanger. The lawyers Peter-Michael Weisse, Alexander Reetz, Eva Thörner, and Jan-Caspar Maiers work with patent attorneys Julia Becker and Sven Lange from Hertin in Berlin. The client relationship came via the two patent attorneys.