(Originally published at IP FRAY https://ipfray.com/upcs-first-brazilian-plaintiff-wins-pi-in-parallel-munich-proceedings/)

‍

Context:

• Brazilian implant manufacturer Silimed Indústria de Implantes first sued German competitor Polytech Health & Aesthetics over polyurethane-coated breast implant technology marketed as “Microthane” in an entitlement action in the Frankfurt Regional Court in 2017. It alleged that Polytech obtained the technology during a prior commercial relationship and later patented it as its own (EP2581193 (“a process for manufacturing implants or intermediate products and implants obtained through that process”)). After over seven years of litigation, Silimed emerged victorious, with the Frankfurt Higher Regional Court ruling in December 2024 that Silimed was the true inventor and ordered Polytech to transfer the patent rights. Then, on February 5, 2026, Silimed asserted that patent against Polytech in the Landgericht München I (Munich Regional Court I).

• Last month, Silimed expanded its campaign to the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC’s) Hamburg Local Division (LD), asserting the same patent against Polytech (March 4, 2026 ip fray article). This action marked the first complaint involving a Brazilian company as a claimant in the UPC (where, since 2023, they have mostly been filed by European, U.S.-based, or Asian companies).

What’s new:

Silimed has been granted a preliminary injunction (PI) against Polytech by the Munich I Regional Court’s 7th Civil Chamber. The court, which issued the PI following a ruling last week, ordered Polytech to immediately cease manufacturing and selling polyurethane-coated implants in Germany, and is expected to issue a more detailed decision later this week. Notably, the court granted the PI with no security requirement, indicating that it deemed both the patent and the infringement case as robust.

Direct impact:

The PI prohibits both sides of the equation: the manufacturing process itself and all products obtained from it, including the specific names of those products: Meme, Replicon, Opticon, Optimam, and Diagon/Gel 4Two. Polytech’s defense arguments had leaned heavily on a “new manufacturing process” narrative to avoid infringement, so this PI puts it at a disadvantage. The company now faces penalties of up to €250,000 per violation, with escalation to custodial sanctions for repeat breaches.

Wider ramifications:

This development now flips the case on its head: for years, Polytech owned the patent and claimed the technology as its own, and now, after losing the entitlement dispute in the Frankfurt court, the company has also been issued a PI on the receiving end of an enforcement action. This is a major win for Silimed, which is aiming for pan-European relief on the same patent through its UPC complaint. Although this PI is only in Germany (not long-arm), it decisively sets the tone for a broader European battle now unfolding at the UPC.

‍

26-04-02 Silimed v. Polytech PI decision Munich I Regional Court

[Download]
‍

At the centre of this case is Silimed’s polyurethane-coating technology, including the critical step of bonding foam layers to uncured silicone through curing/vulcanisation.

Court and counsel

Panel:

Acting Presiding Judge Katalin Tözsér, Judge Dr. Florian Schweyer, and Judge Dr. Julia Obermeier.

Silimed is being represented by RNA Law’s Rob Rodrigues and Karlo Tinoco (who are coordinating the global campaign), as well as Carpmaels & Ransford’s Mike Gruber and John Brunner, Taylor Wessing’s Dr. Gisbert Hohagen and Michael Washbrook, and Hoffmann Eitle’s Anne Schön.

Meanwhile, Polytech is being represented by Viering Jentschura & Partner’s Jörg Wahl, Uli Foerstl, and Clemens Gillen.