Munich Court orders arrest for Polytech general manager

It is the next stage of escalation in the long-running dispute between the Brazilian company Silimed and its German competitor Polytech.

It is the kind of decision that makes compliance departments sit up and take notice. Anyone who violates a court injunction “particularly grossly” risks not only a fine but also personal imprisonment as a managing director. The Munich Regional Court has ordered an arrest for disobedience against court orders against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH, alternatively against his successor (case ID: 7 O 15569/24).

The 7 Civil Chamber’s reasoning lacks nothing in terms of clarity. A fine — capped by law at 250,000 euros — would hardly impress Polytech. The as yet incomplete accounts in the parallel Frankfurt enforcement proceedings show that the company generates a monthly profit with the infringing products that is around eight times the maximum fine that could be imposed (case ID: 2-06 O 378/17) . In other words, Polytech could book the fine as a business expense.

Eight years for a patent

The conflict dates back to the 1990s. At that time, Silimed, a Brazilian manufacturer of silicone implants, supplied its products to Polytech, which acted as the German distributor. In 1995, the parties concluded an agreement that would pave the way for Polytech to obtain CE labelling in Europe. In the course of this collaboration, the German company gained deep insights into the manufacturing expertise of the Brazilians.

The co-operation ended in 2008. Three years later, Polytech registered the implant manufacturing process as European patent EP 2 581 193 — in its own name. The patent was granted in 2015. Silimed struck back in 2017 and filed an vindication action in Frankfurt. A legal marathon followed that went all the way to the Federal Court of Justice and back again.

The decisive turning point came in late 2024 when the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court granted Silimed the patent (case ID: 6 U 79/19). The court found that Polytech had been informed of Silimed’s invention as part of the contractual collaboration. An ICC arbitration tribunal had already established the unlawful use of trade secrets in October 2022 and ordered Polytech to pay damages.

Polytech’s move with the UPC opt-out

While still registered owner of the patent, Polytech declared an opt-out on 30 March 2023, thereby removing EP 193 from the jurisdiction of the UPC.

In order to prevent Polytech from diminishing the value of the patent before the transfer of ownership, Silimed obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction before the Munich Regional Court at the end of 2024 (case no. 7 O 15569/24). Polytech filed an objection against the PI, which the 7th Civil Chamber rejected last week.

In a letter dated 7 January 2026, Silimed expressly warned Polytech that a national nullity action could have a blocking effect under Art. 83 para. 4 UPCA. This would render a later withdrawal from the opt-out ineffective. Silimed would consider this an infringement of the PI.

Two days later, the German Federal Patent Court received a nullity action against the German part of EP 193 (case ID: 6 Ni 6/26). The plaintiff was not Polytech itself. It was its holding company, PTH&A Management with an identical address in Dieburg and identical managing directors.

When Silimed attempted to withdraw the opt-out on 4 February 2026 after the transfer in the patent register and brought an infringement action against Polytech and several European distributors before the UPC on 5 February 2026, it was too late. The Hamburg local division dismissed the action inadmissibly. The withdrawal from the opt-out was invalid due to the previously filed nullity action (case ID: UPC-CFI-481/2026).

Straw man in the corporate group

Oliver Schön

Silimed then applied to the Munich Regional Court for injunctive relief against Polytech. The 7th Civil Chamber presided by Oliver Schön considers PTH&A Management’s nullity action a classic straw man constellation. Only, the straw man here is not an uninvolved third party, but its own parent company. Identical address, identical management: “Therefore, the assumption that the debtor has no possibility of influencing the holding company seems unrealistic”, the decision states.

In response to Polytech’s objection that the decision amounted to an inadmissible “anti-suit injunction”, the 7th Civil Chamber countered: it was not the action for annulment as such that was prohibited, but the impairment of enforceability before the UPC. According to the judges, this had objectively occurred due to the temporal concatenation of the opt-out and collusive action for annulment.

The way out – and its costs

The 7. Civil Chamber opens a loophole for Polytech: enforcement will cease as soon as the action for annulment is withdrawn and Polytech declares that it will no longer invoke the invalidity of the opt-out withdrawal.

Silimed still has the option to appeal against the Hamburg UPC decision while the German Munich proceedings are continuing. At the beginning of April 2026, the Munich Regional Court had already issued another preliminary injunction prohibiting Polytech from distributing the “SublimeLine” products. Polytech has appealed this decision.

What sets this dispute apart from the patent community is not the patent value or the product class, but a rare convergence of three factors: Firstly, the personal detention of the managing director – an instrument that is practically never used in patent disputes. Secondly, the creative use of the opt-out mechanism of the UPC as a litigation tactical weapon that deprives a patentee of the UPC as a forum. And thirdly, the undisguised use of a corporate holding company as a litigation vehicle, which the Munich court categorises as attributable using the language of a straw man.

The judgement shows that the threshold for personal liability of management can be lower than many believed, at least where fines are clearly ineffective. An appeal against the administrative order is possible and likely given its scope.

Brazilian-German team for Silimed

Mike Gruber and Niels Hölder of Carpmaels & Ransford once more represent Silimed in the proceedings at Munich Regional Court. They have represented the Brazilian client from the beginning of the dispute in both national and UPC proceedings. The team works closely with Karlo Tinoco from São Paulo firm RNA Law who manages the cross-border litigation.

For the proceedings in Munich as well as in the UPC case, Polytech relies on a team around Jörg Wahl of Viering Jentschura & Partner.

Co-author: Marc Chmielewski