Munich confirms PI in Silimed vs Polytech breast implant dispute

At the centre of a complex and years-long dispute lies EP 2 581 193. The patent protects a process for manufacturing implants. Since 2017 the Brazilian manufacturer Silimed had fought with competitor Polytech over the ownership of the technology.

In December 2024, the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt awarded EP 193 to Silimed. Polytech then filed an appeal against the denial of leave to appeal and had the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt’s decision reviewed by the Federal Court of Justice, which dismissed the appeal.

In order to protect its newly owned patent in the meantime, Silimed applied for a preliminary injunction against Polytech. It sought to prevent the former patent owner from any action which could harm EP 193. Shortly before Christmas 2024, Munich Regional Court granted Silimed an ex parte PI, forbidding Polytech “to undermine the legal validity and enforceability of EP 193, or to incite third parties to do so” until the decision of the Frankfurt court entered into force, which it finally did on 5 January 2026.

The 7th Civil Chamber under judge Oliver Schön even granted an extension of the PI for another month beyond this date, thus allowing for the time it takes to change the ownership in the registry. Polytech filed an objection against the ex parte PI.

Opt-out valid

After the rights were officially transferred, Silimed launched an infringement action against Polytech and several of its European distributors at the UPC’s local division Hamburg.

While Polytech was still the registered owner, it had filed an opt-out from UPC jurisdiction on 30 March 2023. After the ownership transfer became effective, Silimed attempted to withdraw the opt-out on 4 February, in order to sue before the UPC.

However, prior to that withdrawal, a third party — namely PTH&A Management — had already filed a revocation action against the German part of the patent at the German Federal Patent Court on 9 January 2026 (case ID: 6Ni6/26). According to NorthData, the business purpose of Dieburg-based PTH&A Management is “the holding of shares in companies, their management and financing, as well as the assumption of management responsibilities and the provision of administrative, financial, commercial and technical services as a management holding company to other companies, in particular to Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH and its subsidiaries”.

The panel around presiding judge Sabine Klepsch, including legally qualified judges Stefan Schilling and Rute Lopes, dismissed the action earlier this month. The court ruled that the patent had been validly opted out of UPC jurisdiction and the later attempt to withdraw that opt-out was ineffective (case ID: UPC-CFI-0000481/2026).

Objection dismissed

Yesterday, the 7th Civil Chamber under Oliver Schön dismissed Polytech’s objection against the ex parte PI issued in late December 2024. An appeal against the PI is still possible.

In parallel proceedings, Munich Regional Court had granted a PI application filed by Silimed in early April, prohibiting Polytech from distributing the products of its SublimeLine range. Polytech appealed the decision.

In a parallel entitlement action, Munich Regional Court also ruled early last year that all rights concerning EP 3 002 101 belong to Silimed. An appeal filed by Polytech is still pending (case ID: 6 U 1126/25).

Well-established teams

Mike Gruber and Niels Hölder of Carpmaels & Ransford once more represent Silimed in the proceedings at Munich Regional Court as well as before the UPC. They have represented the Brazilian client from the beginning of the dispute. While associate Melanie Schain represented the company in the previous cases, the team now also includes Jacob Carl and Leoni König who recently joined from Taylor Wessing.

Patent attorney Anne Schön of Hoffmann Eitle, who already worked on the case when Gruber and Hölder were still at the firm, took the lead on the technical side of the proceedings.

The team works closely with Karlo Tinoco from São Paulo firm RNA Law who manages the cross-border litigation. Furthermore, a team from Taylor Wessing also represented Silimed, namely patent litigator Gisbert Hohagen and Irina Rebin. The latter is a specialist in regulatory law in the field of life sciences. Litigator Michael Schneider of Eisenführ Speiser, who represented Silimed in the patent ownership dispute, will strengthen the Taylor Wessing team in June.

For the PI proceedings in Munich as well as in the UPC case, Polytech relies on a team around Jörg Wahl of Viering Jentschura & Partner. Uli Foerstl was also part of the team. Litigator Christian Meyer and patent attorney Derk Voss of mixed firm Maiwald represented the distributors, who were also defendants in the UPC proceedings.