A German court has overturned a decision to imprison the managing director of Polytech, a German medical device company, in a patent dispute with Brazilian competitor Silimed. The most dramatic development in the dispute so far was an arrest for disobedience against Polytech’s managing director (case ID: 7 O 15569/24), accused of abusive litigation tactics to deprive Silimed of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) as a forum.
The Munich Higher Regional Court ruled that the six-month imprisonment ordered by a lower court was disproportionate. The 6 Civil Senate of the Munich Higher Regional Court set aside the lower court’s decision in its entirety and dismissed the application for coercive measures (case ID: 6 W 773/26 e). The case stems from a long-running dispute over a patent for a silicone implant manufacturing process.
A Decades-Long Patent Battle
The conflict began in the 1990s when Silimed, a Brazilian silicone implant manufacturer, supplied its products to Polytech, its German distributor. In 1995, an agreement allowed Polytech to obtain CE marking in Europe, giving it access to Silimed’s manufacturing expertise. Three years after their partnership ended in 2008, Polytech registered the implant manufacturing process as European patent EP 2 581 193 in its own name, granted in 2015.
Silimed countered with a patent infringement lawsuit in 2017, leading to a legal battle that reached Germany’s highest court. The decisive turning point came in late 2024 when the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court awarded the patent to Silimed (case ID: 6 U 79/19), finding Polytech had learned of the invention through their collaboration. An arbitration tribunal had already ruled Polytech misused trade secrets in 2022.
Legal Maneuvers and Arrest Order
While still holding the patent, Polytech opted out of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) jurisdiction on 30 March 2023. Silimed obtained an ex parte preliminary injunction from the Munich Regional Court at the end of 2024 (case ID: 7 O 15569/24) to prevent Polytech from devaluing the patent before ownership transfer. Polytech lodged an objection against the injunction, which the 7th Civil Chamber rejected.
In a letter dated 7 January 2026, Silimed warned Polytech that a national nullity action could block their return to the UPC under Article 83(4) of the UPCA. Despite this, Polytech’s holding company filed such an action on 9 January 2026 (case ID: 6 Ni 6/26). When Silimed attempted to withdraw the opt-out on 4 February 2026 and sue Polytech in the UPC the following day, their case was dismissed as inadmissible (case ID: UPC-CFI-481/2026) due to the nullity action.
Silimed then sought injunctive relief, leading the Munich Regional Court to order the arrest of Polytech’s managing director for disobedience against court orders against the managing director of Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH, alternatively against his successor (case ID: 7 O 15569/24).
According to the ruling, a party cannot retrospectively imbue a legal instrument with its desired content. It also noted that Silimed’s application did not suggest such coverage, and a warning letter could not retroactively alter a legal instrument’s content. The court emphasized that prohibited actions must be established before enforcement.
Legal Strategy and Team Changes
Polytech’s victory is attributed to a new legal strategy and team. The company expanded its legal representation in 2025 with Jörg Wahl and Uli Foerstl from Viering Jentschura & Partner taking the lead. In spring 2026, Polytech added Hogan Lovells Cadwalader and Zimmermann & Partner to its team, bringing a mix of patent lawyers and corporate litigation specialists led by Christian Stoll and Kim Lars Mehrbrey.
Implications and Future Proceedings
The Higher Regional Court’s decision has significant implications for the dispute. The Higher Regional Court did not even rule on whether it constitutes an abuse of the law to cement an opt-out within a corporate group by means of an action for nullity – the application failed on procedural grounds alone. For Silimed, this removes a means of pressure that could have paved the way back to the UPC.
The court’s criticism of the lower court’s reasoning and its finding that imprisonment was disproportionate are key aspects of the ruling. Silimed’s legal team, led by Mike Gruber and Niels Hölder of Carpmaels & Ransford, continues to represent the Brazilian company, working closely with Karlo Tinoco from RNA Law in São Paulo on cross-border litigation.
