Munich court bans AorticLab’s embolic protection device in dispute with Emboline

The dispute concerns embolic protection devices used for chronic embolic protection and is playing out at the UPC and in national courts. At Munich Regional Court, Emboline had brought proceedings concerning its German utility model DE 20 2016 009 224. It protects a device designed to be placed through the descending aorta and over the aortic arch.

The technology aims to prevent the release of emboli into the aortic side-branch vessels during cardiac interventions, particularly transcatheter aortic valve replacement procedures. Such embolic events can cause strokes and other serious complications. The utility model, which was registered in December 2024 and published in January 2025, expires at the end of 2026, leaving Emboline only a limited window to enforce its exclusivity.

The 21st Civil Chamber has now found that AorticLab has infringed the protection right and ordered the Italian medical device manufacturer to cease sales of its FLOWer product in Germany. In addition to the injunction, the panel, presided over by judge Hubertus Schacht, ordered AorticLab to provide information on its sales channels, submit accounts, recall infringing products from commercial customers and hand over stock held in Germany for destruction. The court also held AorticLab liable for damages (case ID: 21 O 1255/25).

Interpretation dispute

The dispute centred on whether the FLOWer device incorporates several key features of the claims, in particular the requirement for a filter body with a catheter access path parallel to the passage through the filter body, and the presence of supporting structures providing longitudinal stiffness. AorticLab argued that the internal wire structure of its device did not constitute a catheter within the meaning of the claims and that the parallel passage identified by Emboline resulted merely from the stitching of the filter.

The court rejected these arguments. It held that the term catheter in the utility model is to be understood broadly and is not limited to interventional or diagnostic catheters. The judges also dismissed AorticLab’s late attempt at the oral hearing to redefine the inner catheter of its product as merely a “nitinol backbone”, finding that AorticLab’s own user manual identified the component as an inner catheter.

AorticLab had also challenged the validity of the utility model, relying on several prior art references, and had raised a defence of disproportionality. The court, however, rejected the latter and deemed the utility model valid. The judges highlighted the short remaining term of the utility model, the fact that Emboline markets a competing product called Emboliner, and AorticLab’s failure to provide concrete figures on the costs of a workaround or on the profits generated by the infringing product.

Contrast with UPC ruling

The ruling contrasts with a recent UPC decision in a parallel dispute in which AorticLab prevailed. Earlier this year, a panel presided over by judge Matthias Zigann dismissed Emboline’s infringement action against AorticLab concerning EP 2 129 425, (case IDs: UPC_CFI_628/2024, UPC_CFI_125/2025). The panel found that FLOWer does not infringe the European patent, which is in force in Germany, France, and Italy.

Emboline had also brought proceedings against AorticLab before Munich Regional Court based on a further utility model, DE 20 2015 010 042 (case ID: 21 O 877/25). The patent holder withdrew the claim earlier this year.

AorticLab may appeal the recent utility model ruling.

Vossius for Emboline

A multidisciplinary team from Vossius & Partner represented Emboline. Thure Schubert led the team; he also represented the US company in the parallel UPC proceedings. Counsel Matthias Jentsch and associate Luisa Huber also worked on the case. The patent attorneys advising on the technical aspects of the case were Ananda Landwehr and partner Arnold Asmussen.

Swedish patent attorneys Erik Krahbichler and Pär Hjalmarsson of KIPA, who advise Emboline on patent prosecution, assisted Vossius.

AorticLab relied on teams from Hoyng ROKH Monegier for both the UPC and the national utility model proceedings. In the Munich utility model proceedings, a team from the firm’s Düsseldorf office acted on behalf of the Italian medical device manufacturer. Partner Mirko Weinert led the case together with counsel Valentin Wagner. Paris-based partner Sabine Agé led the UPC team, supported by Laurène Borey and Valentin Wagner.