UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 553/2025

Jun 19, 2025·EP2387951 +1 more: Braided medical device and manufacturing method therefore

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional Measures
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Peter Koch
Division
Hamburg LD
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
English
First decided
Oct 21, 2025
Last decision
May 20, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-20
    Costs onlyApplication for provisional measures

    The Hamburg Local Division found that the Defendants failed to comply with the Final Order of 21 October 2025 (preliminary injunction for patent EP2387951) by continuing to offer infringing products through their website, on the MedicalExpo B2B platform, and via email communications. The Court ordered the Defendants to pay a penalty of EUR 58,800 to the Court for past non-compliance (91 days on company website at EUR 500/day = EUR 45,500; 133 days on MedicalExpo at EUR 100/day = EUR 13,300), plus a recurring penalty of up to EUR 1,500 per day for any future non-compliance.

    Legal issues:Non-compliance with penalty-reinforced preliminary injunction order (R. 354.4 RoP)Meaning of 'offering' under Art. 25(a) UPCA in enforcement contextDefendant's responsibility for third-party actions (website provider, MedicalExpo automatic translations)Sufficiency of disclaimers when contradicted by surrounding contentProportionality of penalty payments under Art. 82(4) UPCABad faith inquiry as defence to non-compliance finding
  • 2025-10-21
    PI grantedPreliminary injunctionApplication for provisional measures

    The Hamburg Local Division granted Occlutech GmbH's application for a preliminary injunction against Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co. Ltd. and Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. for threatened infringement of EP 2 387 951 (braided occlusion device). The Court held that CE-mark approval for the defendants' competing medical device constituted imminent infringement under R. 206.2(c) RoP, regardless of whether the applicant had prior knowledge. An injunction was issued prohibiting offering, placing on the market, and use in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Value: EUR 1,000,000; defendants bear costs.

    Legal issues:Imminent infringement and CE-mark approval (Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 206.2(c) RoP)Competence (Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA)Prior knowledge of applicant irrelevant after CE-markMedical devices (Regulation (EU) 2017/745)
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.communication.general2026-05-28Not public
Receipt2026-05-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-28Not public
Fee2026-05-28Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-28Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-28Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-28Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-28Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-28Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-20Not public
Order2026-05-20Public
Receipt2026-05-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-12Not public
Application document Claimant2026-05-12Not public
action.communication.general2026-05-07Not public
Receipt2026-04-08Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-08Not public
Application document Defendant2026-04-08Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-27Not public
Receipt2026-03-25Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-25Not public
Document Claimant2026-03-25Not public
Document Claimant2026-03-25Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-16Not public
Receipt2026-03-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Application document Defendant2026-03-12Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-03Not public
Receipt2026-03-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-02Not public
Fee2026-03-02Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-02Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-02Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-02Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-03-02Not public
Application document Claimant2026-03-02Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-06Not public
Application document Claimant2025-11-06Not public
Receipt2025-11-06Not public
action.phaseChange.caseClose2025-10-21Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2025-10-21Not public
Final Order2025-10-21Public
action.issueDecision.decision2025-10-21Not public
Final Order2025-10-21Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2025-10-21Not public
Other Documents2025-09-29Not public
2025-08-01_Noerr_Reply_Provisional_Measures_ACT_29239_20252025-08-01Not public
2025-08-01_Noerr_Reply_Provisional_Measures_ACT_29239_20252025-08-01Not public
Open workflow2025-08-01Not public
Summon-Oral-Hearing2025-07-28Not public
Summons2025-07-28Public
Exhibit_Occ82025-07-25Not public
Response_Occlutech_EP9512025-07-25Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-07-16Not public
Hear parties2025-07-16Public
Confidentiality order2025-07-16Not public
Receipt2025-07-15Not public
2025.07.15_Noerr_Objection to the Application for Provisional Measures_ACT_29239_2025_redacted2025-07-15Not public
2025.07.15_Noerr_Application_262A2025-07-15Not public
Exhibit_D_01_Feature_Breakdown2025-07-15Not public
2025.07.15_Noerr_Objection to the Application for Provisional Measures_ACT_29239_20252025-07-15Not public
Exhibit_DN_01_WO_2008040555_A22025-07-15Not public
Exhibit_DN_02_WO_9601591_A12025-07-15Not public
Exhibit_D_03_Original Description of the Patent in Suit2025-07-15Not public
Exhibit_DN_01a_WO_2008040555_A2_EN2025-07-15Not public
Exhibit_D_02_Response to Communication pursuant to Rule 69 EPC2025-07-15Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-07-09Not public
Outcome of the Order2025-06-30Not public
deadline extension2025-06-30Public
Receipt2025-06-26Not public
2025.06.25_Time_Extension_Request_ACT_29239_20252025-06-25Not public
Notification Of Service2025-06-24Not public
Receipt of service2025-06-24Not public
Notification Of Service2025-06-24Not public
Receipt of service2025-06-24Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2025-06-24Not public
Acknowledgement of access to case2025-06-24Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-06-20Not public
Letter-for-Service2025-06-19Not public
Letter-for-Service2025-06-19Not public
Order2025-06-19Public
Notice-to-Accompany-Service-of-Order-for-Measures2025-06-19Not public
Notice-to-Accompany-Service-of-Order-for-Measures2025-06-19Not public
Panel-Appointment2025-06-19Not public
Application-For-Measures-Receipt2025-06-19Not public
Formal-checks_Notification-of-positive-outcome2025-06-19Not public
Application-For-Measures-Acknowledgement2025-06-19Not public
Exhibit_Occ32025-06-19Not public
Application for provisional meassures2025-06-19Not public
Exhibit_Occ42025-06-19Not public
Exhibit_Occ12025-06-19Not public
Exhibit_Occ62025-06-19Not public
Exhibit_Occ52025-06-19Not public
Exhibit_Occ72025-06-19Not public
Exhibit_Occ22025-06-19Not public
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • CE-mark approval constitutes imminent infringement sufficient for PI application under R. 206.2(c) RoP regardless of prior applicant knowledge

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62(2) UPCA; R. 206.2(c) RoP; Art. 5.1 Regulation (EU) 2017/745

    Note: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA

    Note: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 62 UPCA

    Note: Hamburg Local Division granted the PI across Germany, France, Italy, Netherlands, and Ireland.

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

  • Security/enforcement bond should be ordered against Occlutech

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 211.5 RoP

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
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) RoPApplicant's prior knowledge of the accused device before CE-mark approval is irrelevant to urgency; the CE mark is the relevant triggering eventCE-mark approval combined with public trade fair announcement and provision of ordering information constitutes 'setting the stage to market' for purposes of imminent infringementDefendants seeking security must substantiate potential damage with specifics including sales price and volume projections

Browse other cases on this principle.