UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CoA 907/2025

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

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Appeal
Category
Main appeal
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Division
Court of Appeal
Judges
Technology
  • Instruments
    Medical technology
Language
German
First decided
Jun 18, 2026
EPO Opposition
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Judge Klaus GrabinskiLocked
Judge Peter BlokLocked
Judge Emmanuel GougéLocked
Judge Elisabetta PapaLocked
Judge Max TilmannLocked

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 CFI 630/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Court of Appeal·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-06-18
    Appeal RoP220.1Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (7)
    • Appeal against refusal of preliminary injunction
    • Claim construction / interpretation of claim 1 (occlusion instrument with fully closed proximal wall)
    • Sufficient degree of certainty as to validity and infringement for preliminary injunction
    • New facts and evidence on appeal
    • Absence of a party at the oral hearing
    • Balance of interests
    • Costs allocation across two instances
Documents
Show all 80 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-07-31Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-31Not public
Application Appellant2026-07-31Not public
Case closed2026-06-18Not public
Decision2026-06-18Not public
Final Order2026-06-18Public
Communication2026-06-16Not public
Oral procedure closed2026-05-13Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-05-13Not public
Summons to oral hearing2026-05-05Not 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