por
Gus Iversen, Editor in Chief | June 17, 2026
The Unified Patent Court’s Düsseldorf Local Division has ruled largely in favor of Hologic in a patent infringement dispute with Siemens Healthineers concerning breast tomosynthesis imaging technology used in mammography systems.
The June 10, 2026 decision centers on European Patent EP 2 352 431 B1, which covers a method and system for controlling X-ray focal spot characteristics in breast tomosynthesis and mammography imaging. Hologic, the Marlborough, Massachusetts-based medical technology company, alleged that Siemens Healthineers’ MAMMOMAT B.brilliant mammography platform infringed the patent.
The court found the infringement action admissible and “for the most part, well founded,” while rejecting Siemens’ counterclaim seeking revocation of the patent. The ruling states that the patent remains valid and that the defendants’ revocation challenge was unsuccessful.
Ad Statistics
Times Displayed: 10528
Times Visited: 32 Brand-New FDA-cleared Advanced Ultrasound Medical Device available for sale or lease to Wound Care Centers or any other Medical Facilities.The Arobella 1000D is designed for non-contact or debridement ultrasound wound healing therapy, or any other wounds
At issue was technology designed to compensate for movement of the X-ray tube during tomosynthesis imaging by moving the focal spot in the opposite direction, reducing image blur and improving image quality. The patent describes a breast tomosynthesis system in which the effective focal spot appears fixed relative to the breast or detector during exposure.
Hologic argued that Siemens’ MAMMOMAT B.brilliant system, introduced in late 2023, incorporated the patented technology. Siemens denied infringement and challenged the patent’s validity, raising arguments related to claim interpretation, prior-use rights and inventive step.
Hologic requested a UPC-wide injunction covering Germany, France and the Netherlands. Since the court found infringement and validity, the normal UPC remedy is an order preventing further sales and marketing of the infringing product in the affected countries, unless modified for proportionality reasons.
The court’s headnote also addressed publication of judgments under Article 80 of the UPC Agreement, finding that a patent owner’s legitimate interest in publication may arise when an accused product has been marketed with explicit references to the patented technology.
The case was heard by Panel 2 of the Düsseldorf Local Division, with oral arguments held April 14, 2026. The decision was issued by a four-judge panel led by presiding judge Dr. Thom.
Siemens has 60 days to comply with or appeal the decision.
