UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 630/2025

Jul 8, 2025·EP1998686 · OCCLUSION INSTRUMENT AND METHOD FOR ITS PRODUCTION

Action number: ACT 32548/2025

Follow
Case details
Status
Case ClosedSet aside on appeal, Jun 18, 2026
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
German
First decided
Sep 2, 2025
Last decision
Oct 31, 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
Dusseldorf LDLockedLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLockedLocked
Judge András KupeczLockedLocked
Judge Jule SchumacherLockedLocked
Judge Martin SchmidtLockedLocked

At the UPC: Occlutech GmbH (8 cases)·Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. (8 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CFI 1569/2026·UPC CoA 6/2026·UPC CoA 907/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2025-10-31
    Application for provisional measuresPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (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
  • 2025-09-02
    Application RoP262APublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Confidentiality protection (R. 262A RoP)
    • Confidentiality club in preliminary injunction proceedings
  • 2025-08-20
    Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Appointment of technically qualified judge in PI proceedings (Art. 8(5)(2) UPCA, R. 34 RoP)
    • Legal standard for validity in provisional measures
Documents
Show all 121 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-08-03Not public
Receipt2026-07-31Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-31Not public
Application document Defendant2026-07-31Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-01Not public
Application document Claimant2025-12-01Not public
Receipt2025-12-01Not public
Case closed2025-11-25Not public
Decision2025-10-31Not public
Final Order2025-10-31Not public
Plain-English summary

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.

Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • No unreasonable delay: applicant acted sufficiently promptly after observing accused products at trade fairs and conducting infringement analysis

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.4 RoP

    Note: 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)

    ClaimantLegal basis: Headnote 1 of the order

    Note: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Headnote 3 of the order

    Note: 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.

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

  • Infringement is established: the accused occlusion devices fall within the scope of EP 1 998 686 B2

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 211.2 RoP; Headnote 2 of the order

    Reason: 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.

Key legal principles
Doctrines and rules cited in the reasoning.
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 unavailableBurden of proof for patent invalidity in PI proceedings rests with respondentWhen parties submit conflicting translations of prior art, the respondent bears the burden of substantiating its preferred translationUrgency in PI proceedings assessed holistically; reasonable delay for investigation and targeted trade fair confirmation does not defeat urgency

Browse other cases on this principle.

Claim construction notes

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.