UPC Analytics
ENDE
Overview · Filed: —

ACT_14764/2025

ELECTROLYTIC MEDIUM, ELECTROPOLISHING PROCESS USING SUCH ELECTROLYTIC MEDIUM AND DEVICE TO CARRY IT OUT

Provisional measuresProvisional MeasuresHamburg LDApplication for provisional measures—
OverviewDecisionsReasoningCitationsDocumentsTimeline
Plain-English summary

Steros GPA Innovative S.L. obtained a preliminary injunction against OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH before the Hamburg Local Division for infringement of EP 4 249 647, covering an electrolytic medium for electropolishing. The court applied a balance-of-probabilities validity standard, rejected the defendant's unsubstantiated prior-use defence, and found the balance of interests favoured Steros because OTEC's product enabled new machine sales at Steros's expense. A subsequent rectification order corrected clerical errors in the PI order but declined to alter the court's legal assessment of the skilled person.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • Patent validity established on balance of probabilities (more likely than not valid)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA; Rule 211.2 RoP

    Note: Hamburg LD held that in PI proceedings the validity threshold is met if the court considers it more likely than not that the patent is valid; burden of proof for invalidity lies with the defendant.

  • Public prior use requires all claim features to have been used previously

    Claimant

    Note: Court confirmed that a prior-use attack must cover each and every claim feature; defendant's prior-use argument failed to satisfy this standard.

  • Weighing of interests favoured applicant because defendant's product enabled new machine sales creating market opportunities lost to the applicant

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA

    Note: The contested embodiment, combined with sale of a new machine, opened a new market; patent infringement led to subsequent business transactions for defendant representing missed opportunities for claimant.

Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Request for security for enforcement

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.5 RoP; R. 213.2 RoP

    Reason: Defendant provided no reasoned application — merely reproduced the wording of R. 211.5 RoP without presenting facts such as applicant's financial situation or difficulties in enforcement.

  • Attacked embodiment contains only one fluid (a water-in-oil emulsion) preventing infringement

    Respondent

    Reason: Court found infringement established; the emulsion characterisation did not rebut the claim elements regarding non-conductive fluid and solid electrolyte particles.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
Balance of probabilities validity standard for provisional measuresBurden of proof for invalidity lies with the defendant in PI proceedingsPublic prior use must cover all claim featuresWeighing of interests in PI can favour patentee where infringement opens new downstream marketsSecurity for enforcement requires a reasoned application with supporting facts

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

The claim requires: solid electrolyte particles retaining a conductive solution with conductivity >10 microS/cm; a non-conductive fluid immiscible in the conductive solution (not forming a single phase 0–100°C, not significantly conducting current at rest). The court interpreted 'non-conductive fluid' by reference to paragraph [0067] of the description, treating it as the 'defining element of the invention'. The defendant's argument that the product was merely a water-in-oil emulsion (single fluid) was rejected.