UPC_CFI_553/2025

Braided medical device and manufacturing method therefore

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenHamburg LDProvisional measuresCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Zitate Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

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.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

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) 2017/745
Hinweis: 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) UPCA
Hinweis: 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 UPCA
Hinweis: Hamburg Local Division granted the PI across Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Ireland.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

Security/enforcement bond should be ordered against Occlutech
BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.5 RoP
Begründung: 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.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

CE-mark approval for a medical device signals imminent market entry across all EU member states and constitutes an indication of imminent infringement under R. 206.2(c) RoP Applicant's prior knowledge of the accused device before CE-mark approval is irrelevant to urgency; the CE mark is the relevant triggering event CE-mark approval combined with public trade fair announcement and provision of ordering information constitutes 'setting the stage to market' for purposes of imminent infringement Defendants seeking security must substantiate potential damage with specifics including sales price and volume projections

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.