UPC CFI 630/2025
8. Juli 2025·EP1998686 · OCCLUSION INSTRUMENT AND METHOD FOR ITS PRODUCTION
Hauptaktenzeichen: ACT 32548/2025
- Verfahrensdetails
- StatusCase ClosedIn der Berufung aufgehoben, 18. Juni 2026VerfahrensartEinstweilige VerfügungKategorieEinstweilige Maßnahmen
- Parteien
- Kläger
- Occlutech GmbHUnternehmen
Beklagte- Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A.Unternehmen
- Lepu Medcial Technology (Peking) Co., Ltd.Unternehmen
Vertreter- Niclas Gajeck-Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
- Armin Kühne-Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
- Ralf Nack-Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB
- Christian Läufer-Fuchs Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB
- Division
- Dusseldorf LD
- Technologie
- InstrumentsMedical technology
- Sprache
- German
- Erste Entscheidung
- 2. Sept. 2025
- Letzte Entscheidung
- 31. Okt. 2025
- EPA-Einspruch
- AGA Medical CorporationZurückgenommen2010-06-08
- Berufung
- Aufgehoben durch UPC CoA 907/2025 · 18. Juni 2026
| Einstweilige Verfügung erlassen | Median Tage bis zur ersten Entscheidung | |
|---|---|---|
| Gesamt-UPC | 54% (38/70) | 124 |
| Dusseldorf LD | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Ronny Thomas | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter András Kupecz | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Jule Schumacher | Gesperrt | Gesperrt |
| Richter Martin Schmidt | 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: Dusseldorf LD·2025
- 2025-10-31Application for provisional measuresÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division dismissed the application for provisional measures filed by Occultech GmbH against Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. and others concerning EP 1 998 686 B2. The court found that the requirements for a preliminary injunction were not met (infringement not established with sufficient certainty), and ordered the applicant to bear the costs. The case value was provisionally set at EUR 1,000,000.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (4)
- Scope of protection of device claims extending to inferior embodiments
- Burden of proof and presentation in provisional measures proceedings
- Translations of prior art documents in interim proceedings
- Urgency and undue delay in filing for provisional measures
- 2025-09-02Application RoP262AÖffentlich
Zusammenfassung: The Düsseldorf Local Division judge-rapporteur issued a confidentiality order under Rule 262A RoP in preliminary injunction proceedings, restricting access to certain confidential technical and commercial information of the respondents to a limited circle of persons.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP)
- Confidentiality club in preliminary injunction proceedings
- 2025-08-20
Zusammenfassung: Düsseldorf Local Division order (judge-rapporteur Kupecz) in provisional measures proceedings by Occlutech GmbH against Lepu Medical entities concerning EP 1 998 686 (medical device / patent). The order appoints a technically qualified judge (TQJ) under Art. 8(5)(2) UPCA and R. 34 RoP for the PI proceedings, as the panel considers it necessary to assess the validity of the patent at issue. No substantive ruling.
Rechtsfragen anzeigen (2)
- Appointment of technically qualified judge in PI proceedings (Art. 8(5)(2) UPCA, R. 34 RoP)
- Legal standard for validity in provisional measures
| Dokumenttitel | Datum | Öffentlich |
|---|---|---|
| Mitteilung | 2026-08-03 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2026-07-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2026-07-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Defendant | 2026-07-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Cover sheet | 2025-12-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Application document Claimant | 2025-12-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Receipt | 2025-12-01 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Verfahren abgeschlossen | 2025-11-25 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Entscheidung | 2025-10-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
| Final Order | 2025-10-31 | Nicht öffentlich |
Occultech GmbH sought a preliminary injunction against Lepu Medical entities for infringement of EP 1 998 686 B2 (occlusion instrument). While the Düsseldorf Local Division found no unreasonable delay and accepted important claim construction and burden-of-proof principles, it ultimately denied the PI because Lepu specifically contested Occultech's infringement submissions and the evidence available in summary proceedings was insufficient to establish infringement with the required certainty, making the issuance of injunctive relief unjustified at this stage.
No unreasonable delay: applicant acted sufficiently promptly after observing accused products at trade fairs and conducting infringement analysis
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoPHinweis: Court found the applicant reasonably waited for the CSI Frankfurt trade show to confirm infringement before filing, and then filed promptly.
Scope of device claim extends to embodiments where claimed structural features are present even if they do not achieve the full intended function (inferior embodiments)
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Headnote 1 of the orderHinweis: Court confirmed as a headnote that limiting scope to achievement of unclaimed functions would inadequately protect the patent proprietor.
Burden of proof for patent invalidity in PI proceedings lies with the respondent; where both parties submit conflicting translations of prior art, the respondent bears the burden of justifying its translation
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Headnote 3 of the orderHinweis: Court placed burden on respondent to substantiate its machine translation over the applicant's translation; unsubstantiated challenge meant the court applied the applicant's translation.
Infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of EP 1 998 686 B2
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.2 RoP; Headnote 2 of the orderBegründung: Court found that infringement was not established with the certainty required for provisional measures after the respondent specifically contested the applicant's submissions on infringement; expert evidence would be needed, which is not available in PI proceedings.
Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.
The Düsseldorf court applied purposive construction holding that the scope of a device claim is determined by the structural features recited, not by functions or technical advantages described in the specification but not claimed. An embodiment that has the structural features but achieves them less effectively (inferior embodiment) still falls within the claim.