UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 281/2025

Mar 26, 2025·EP4249647 Unitary patent · ELECTROLYTIC MEDIUM, ELECTROPOLISHING PROCESS USING SUCH ELECTROLYTIC MEDIUM AND DEVICE TO CARRY IT OUT

Action number: ACT 14764/2025

Follow
Case details
Status
Case ClosedSet aside on appeal, Nov 7, 2025
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Surface technology, coating
Language
English
First decided
Jun 16, 2025
EPO Opposition
Appealed
How this compares
The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.
Preliminary injunction grantedMedian days to first decision
All UPC54% (38/70)124
Hamburg LDLockedLocked
Judge Sabine KlepschLockedLocked
Judge Stefan SchillingLockedLocked
Judge Petri RinkinenLockedLocked
Judge Rudi GoedeweeckLockedLocked

At the UPC: Steros GPA Innovative S.L. (8 cases)·OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH (9 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 4 other proceedings

UPC CFI 660/2025·UPC CFI 656/2025·UPC CoA 579/2025·UPC CoA 581/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Hamburg LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2025-06-16
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: Hamburg Local Division granted a preliminary injunction ordering OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH to cease and desist from manufacturing, offering, placing on the market, using, exporting, or possessing in 18 UPC contracting states an electrolytic medium for electropolishing processes that infringes a patent for such a medium. The court held that validity is established on a balance of probabilities standard (more likely than not valid); the burden for invalidity lies with the defendant. The weighing of interests favoured the applicant as the defendant's product enabled new machine sales creating market opportunities lost to the applicant. The defendant's request for security for enforcement was denied as no sufficient facts (e.g. financial difficulties) were presented. Penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per non-compliance.

    Show the legal issues (6)
    • Preliminary injunction (Art. 62(2) UPCA, R. 209(2) RoP)
    • Validity standard in PI proceedings (balance of probabilities)
    • Burden of proof for invalidity
    • Weighing of interests
    • Security for enforcement (R. 211.5, R. 213.2 RoP)
    • Public prior use
  • 2025-06-16
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: The Hamburg Local Division (full panel: Klepsch, Schilling, Rinkinen, Goedeweeck) partially granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the provisional measures order of 16 June 2025 granted to Steros GPA Innovative S.L. concerning EP 4 249 647. The court corrected clerical mistakes (omitted letters) and certain erroneous references (water-in-oil to oil-in-water emulsion, a missing table reference, and a result table entry). However, the court rejected OTEC's request to alter the description of the 'skilled person' in the art, finding that this went beyond rectification of obvious slips.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • Rectification of clerical mistakes and obvious slips in provisional measures order (R. 353 RoP)
    • Distinction between rectifiable errors and substantive amendments
    • Electropolishing / electrolytic medium technology
Documents
Show all 126 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Outcome of the Order2025-08-10Not public
Order with grounds2025-08-10Public
Comments2025-08-04Not public
Anhoerung2025-07-24Not public
Receipt2025-07-15Not public
Application R.353 Rectification2025-07-14Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-06-20Not public
Declaration2025-06-20Public
Declaration2025-06-20Public
Declaration2025-06-20Public
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.