UPC_CFI_630/2025

OCCLUSION INSTRUMENT AND METHOD FOR ITS PRODUCTION

Einstweilige MaßnahmenEinstweilige MaßnahmenDusseldorf LDProvisional measuresCase Closed

Übersicht Entscheidungen Begründung Dokumente Zeitverlauf

Zusammenfassung in einfacher Sprache

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.

Angenommene Argumente

Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

No unreasonable delay: applicant acted sufficiently promptly after observing accused products at trade fairs and conducting infringement analysis
KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.4 RoP
Hinweis: 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 order
Hinweis: 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 order
Hinweis: 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.

Zurückgewiesene Argumente

Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

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 order
Begründung: 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.

Zentrale Rechtsgrundsätze

In der Begründung herangezogene Doktrinen und Regeln.

Device claim scope covers structural embodiments even where claimed function is not fully realised (inferior embodiments)In PI proceedings, once respondent specifically contests infringement allegations, applicant must rebut with facts establishing infringement to the required degree of certainty; expert evidence is generally unavailable Burden of proof for patent invalidity in PI proceedings rests with respondent When parties submit conflicting translations of prior art, the respondent bears the burden of substantiating its preferred translation Urgency in PI proceedings assessed holistically; reasonable delay for investigation and targeted trade fair confirmation does not defeat urgency

Weitere Fälle zu diesem Grundsatz ansehen.

Hinweise zur Anspruchsauslegung

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.