UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CoA 907/2025

Nov 19, 2025·EP1998686: OCCLUSION INSTRUMENT AND METHOD FOR ITS PRODUCTION

Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main Appeal
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Peter Koch (PENFORCE)
Respondents
Reps: Ralph Nack (Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB)
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
Pharmaceutical & Medical
Language
German
First decided
Jun 18, 2026
Claims
At issue1
Infringed1
Notes: Preliminary injunction proceedings only; finding of infringement is at the sufficient-certainty standard required for interim relief, not a final merits determination.
Decisions
  • 2026-06-18
    PI grantedAppeal decisionAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal allowed Occlutech's appeal and set aside the Düsseldorf Local Division order of 31 October 2025 that had refused preliminary injunctive relief. The Court of Appeal issued a preliminary injunction against Lepu prohibiting the offer, placing on the market, use, possession, or importation of occlusion instruments according to claim 1 of EP 1 998 686 in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands, with a periodic penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per day per violation. Lepu was ordered to bear the costs of both instances.

    Legal issues:Appeal against refusal of preliminary injunctionClaim construction / interpretation of claim 1 (occlusion instrument with fully closed proximal wall)Sufficient degree of certainty as to validity and infringement for preliminary injunctionNew facts and evidence on appealAbsence of a party at the oral hearingBalance of interestsCosts allocation across two instances
    Damages:
  • 2026-06-18
    PI grantedAppeal decisionAppeal RoP220.1

    The Court of Appeal set aside the first-instance order that had denied provisional measures and granted the preliminary injunction requested by Occlutech. Lepu is ordered to refrain from offering, placing on the market, using, importing, or possessing occlusion instruments according to claim 1 of EP 1 998 686 in Germany, France, Italy, and the Netherlands. Lepu must also bear the legal costs of both instances.

    Legal issues:Appeal against denial of provisional measuresClaim construction of claim 1 (occlusion device with closed proximal wall)Absence of a party from the oral hearingAdmissibility of new facts and evidence on appeal
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-06-18Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-06-18Not public
Final Order2026-06-18Public
action.communication.general2026-06-16Not public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseClose2026-05-13Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-05-13Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-05-05Not public
Summons2026-05-05Public
Receipt2026-05-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-05Not public
Submission Respondent2026-05-05Not public
Receipt2026-05-05Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-05Not public
Submission Appellant2026-05-05Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-04Not public
Order2026-05-04Public
Receipt2026-05-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-04Not public
Submission Appellant2026-05-04Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-05-04Not public
Order2026-05-04Public
Receipt2026-04-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-14Not public
Exhibit Appellant2026-04-14Not public
Submission Appellant2026-04-14Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-01Not public
Order2026-04-01Public
action.phaseChange.oralPhaseOpen2026-01-23Not public
action.phaseChange.interimPhaseClose2026-01-23Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-01-22Not public
Summons2026-01-22Public
Receipt2026-01-22Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-22Not public
Other document Respondent2026-01-22Not public
Receipt2026-01-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-13Not public
Other document Respondent2026-01-13Not public
Receipt2026-01-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-12Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-12Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-12Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-12Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-12Not public
Receipt2026-01-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-12Not public
Other document Appellant2026-01-12Not public
action.phaseChange.interimPhaseOpen2026-01-09Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseClose2026-01-09Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-09Not public
Order2026-01-09Public
Cover sheet2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Exhibit document Respondent2025-12-11Not public
Statement of Response2025-12-11Not public
Receipt2025-12-11Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-26Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-19Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-19Not public
Receipt2025-11-19Not public
Formal Deficiency found2025-11-19Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-15Not public
Fee2025-11-15Not public
Statement of appeal and statement of the grounds of appeal2025-11-15Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-15Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-15Not public
Exhibit document Appellant2025-11-15Not public
Receipt2025-11-15Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The accused embodiments (MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD) fall within the scope of claim 1 of EP 1 998 686 as properly construed

    ClaimantLegal basis: EP 1 998 686, claim 1

  • Sufficient degree of certainty as to validity and infringement exists to justify granting preliminary measures

    ClaimantLegal basis: UPCA Art. 62; R. 211 RoP

  • Balance of interests favours granting the preliminary injunction to Occlutech

    ClaimantLegal basis: UPCA Art. 62(2)
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The accused embodiments do not fall within the scope of claim 1 (non-infringement defence)

    RespondentLegal basis: EP 1 998 686, claim 1