UPC CFI 553/2025
19. Juni 2025·EP2387951 · Braided medical device and manufacturing method therefore
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedVerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Beklagte
- Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A.Unternehmen
- Lepu Medcial Technology (Bejing) Co., Ltd.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Ralph Nack-Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
- Division
- Hamburg LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- English
- Erste Entscheidung
- 21. Okt. 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 20. Mai 2026
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Hamburg LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Sabine Klepsch | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Stefan Schilling | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Samuel Granata | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
Vor dem UPC: Occlutech GmbH (8 Verfahren)·Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. (8 Verfahren)
Dieser Streit umfasst 3 weitere Verfahren
Starten Sie die kostenlose Testphase, um die Ausgänge zu sehen.
Weitere Verfahren: Hamburg LD·2025
- 2026-05-20Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division found that the Defendants failed to comply with the Final Order of 21 October 2025 (preliminary injunction for patent EP2387951) by continuing to offer infringing products through their website, on the MedicalExpo B2B platform, and via email communications. The Court ordered the Defendants to pay a penalty of EUR 58,800 to the Court for past non-compliance (91 days on company website at EUR 500/day = EUR 45,500; 133 days on MedicalExpo at EUR 100/day = EUR 13,300), plus a recurring penalty of up to EUR 1,500 per day for any future non-compliance.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (6)
- Non-compliance with penalty-reinforced preliminary injunction order (R. 354.4 RoP)
- Meaning of 'offering' under Art. 25(a) UPCA in enforcement context
- Defendant's responsibility for third-party actions (website provider, MedicalExpo automatic translations)
- Sufficiency of disclaimers when contradicted by surrounding content
- Proportionality of penalty payments under Art. 82(4) UPCA
- Bad faith inquiry as defence to non-compliance finding
- 2025-10-21Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Hamburg Local Division granted Occlutech GmbH's application for a preliminary injunction against Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd. and Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. for threatened infringement of EP 2 387 951 (braided occlusion device). The Court held that CE-mark approval for the defendants' competing medical device constituted imminent infringement under R. 206.2(c) RoP, regardless of whether the applicant had prior knowledge. An injunction was issued prohibiting offering, placing on the market, and use in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Value: EUR 1,000,000; defendants bear costs.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Imminent infringement and CE-mark approval (Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 206.2(c) RoP)
- Competence (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA)
- Prior knowledge of applicant irrelevant after CE-mark
- Medical devices (Regulation (EU) 2017/745)
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Receipt | 2026-06-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-06-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-06-11 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Mitteilung | 2026-05-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-05-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-05-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Fee | 2026-05-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Claimant | 2026-05-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Claimant | 2026-05-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Exhibit Claimant | 2026-05-28 | Nicht öffentlich |
Occlutech GmbH obtained a preliminary injunction from the Hamburg Local Division against Lepu Medical (Beijing and Europe) prohibiting the threatened infringement of EP 2 387 951 B1 (braided occlusion device for cardiac defects) across Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Ireland. The court established an important principle that CE-mark approval alone signals imminent EU market entry and therefore imminent patent infringement; prior applicant knowledge of the device before CE marking is irrelevant to the urgency threshold.
CE-mark approval constitutes imminent infringement sufficient for PI application under R. 206.2(c) RoP regardless of prior applicant knowledge
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 206.2(c) RoP; Art. 5.1 Regulation (EU) 2017/745Hinweis: Court held that obtaining CE-mark approval (required for legal EU market entry) signals imminent market entry and therefore imminent infringement; the applicant's prior knowledge of the device is irrelevant because the CE mark is the triggering event.
Hamburg Local Division has competence under Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA given imminent infringement in Germany
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 33(1)(a) UPCAHinweis: CE-mark approval combined with trade fair announcement and ordering information established threatened German infringement.
Occlutech's EP 2 387 951 is infringed by Lepu's braided occlusion device
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 62 UPCAHinweis: Hamburg Local Division granted the PI across Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Ireland.
Security/enforcement bond should be ordered against Occlutech
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.5 RoPBegründung: Court found defendants did not substantiate the sales price and expected volumes needed to estimate damage, and did not show serious difficulties in recovering damages from the EU-based claimant with sufficient funds.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.