UPC CoA 579/2025

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

• 2025-11-07
  Application for provisional measuresPublic

  Summary: Court of Appeal allowed OTEC's appeal and set aside the first-instance order granting provisional measures to STEROS. The CoA found the appeal successful and ordered that STEROS's application for provisional measures be rejected. STEROS was ordered to bear the costs of both the first-instance and appeal proceedings.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Provisional measures on appeal (Art.62 UPCA)
  • Setting aside first-instance provisional measures order
  • Costs allocation in provisional measures proceedings
• 2025-11-07
  Application for provisional measuresPublic

  Summary: The Court of Appeal (Panel 1a: Grabinski, Gougé, Blok, Meewisse, Schmidt) partially granted STEROS GPA Innovative S.L.'s application for rectification (R. 353 RoP) of the Court of Appeal's order of 7 November 2025 which had set aside the Hamburg Local Division's provisional measures grant and rejected the application for provisional measures concerning EP 4 249 647. The court corrected a clerical mistake in margin 45 (Table 1 changed to Table 10), but rejected STEROS' further argument that margin 43 contained an 'obvious slip' since the proposed change would affect the substance of the reasoning.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Rectification of obvious slip in CoA order (R. 353 RoP)
  • Distinction between clerical mistake and substantive error
  • Electropolishing technology - conductivity of non-conductive fluid
• 2025-07-24
  Public

  Summary: Court of Appeal (judge-rapporteur Emmanuel Gougé) granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH's application for leave to file a further written pleading under R. 36 RoP in the appeal proceedings concerning a preliminary injunction granted by the Hamburg Local Division (16 June 2025) to STEROS GPA Innovative S.L. for infringement of EP 4 249 647. STEROS had introduced new experimental evidence in its Statement of Response; OTEC was granted two weeks to respond specifically to the experiments (Exhibits GRU 15–17) and related paragraphs of the Response. The Court found the exceptional circumstances required by R. 36 RoP were met given the new evidence.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • Further written pleading in appeal (R. 36 RoP)
  • New experimental evidence in respondent's Statement of Response
  • Conditions for additional written round in appeal proceedings