UPC COA 900/2025 – Occlutech GmbH v Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

Court
Court of Appeal
Date
Outcome
Application for suspensive effect rejected
Sector
Medical Devices
Decision Type
Order on application for suspensive effect

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

1 Reference no.: UPC COA 900/2025 Order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued on 7 November 2025 concerning an application for suspensive effect APPLICANTS (APPELLANTS AND DEFENDANTS IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) 1. Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Heerenveen, The Netherlands 2. Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd., Beijing, China hereinafter "Lepu" represented by attorney-at-law Dr. Ralph Nack, Noerr Partnerschaftsgesellschaft mbB, and other representatives of that firm RESPONDENT (RESPONDENT AND CLAIMANT IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE) Occlutech GmbH, Jena, Germany (hereinafter "Occlutech") represented by Dr. Peter Koch, attorney-at-law, PENFORCE PATENT AT ISSUE EP 2 387 951 DECIDING JUDGE Peter Blok, Legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE □ Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, dated 21 October 2025 □ Reference number: UPC CFI 553/2025 2 SUMMARY OF FACTS AND REQUESTS OF THE PARTIES 1. On 18 June 2025, Occlutech lodged an application for provisional measures against Lepu with the Hamburg Local Division, requesting inter alia that the Hamburg Local Division order Lepu to cease and desist from – in summary – infringing the patent at issue. 2. By order of 21 October 2025, the Hamburg Local Division granted the provisional injunction against Lepu (“the impugned order”). 3. On 5 November 2025, Lepu lodged an appeal against the impugned order. Its Statement of appeal and Grounds of appeal includes an application for suspensive effect under R. 223 RoP. Lepu requests that the Court of Appeal decide the application for suspensive effect on an expedited basis and, if necessary, permit the standing judge to decide the application without delay under R. 223.4 RoP. REASONS FOR THE ORDER 4. Pursuant to Article 74(1) UPCA, an appeal shall not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties. The Court of Appeal may therefore grant the application only if the circumstances of the case justify an exception to the principle that an appeal shall have no suspensive effect. It must be examined whether, on the basis of these circumstances, the appellant's interest in maintaining the status quo until the decision on its appeal exceptionally outweighs the respondent's interest. An exception to the principle that an appeal has no suspensive effect may apply, for instance, if the appealed order or decision is manifestly erroneous, or if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence of suspensive effect (Court of Appeal 19 June 2024, UPC CoA 301/2024 APL 33746/2024 App 35055/2024 - ICPillar vs. ARM). 5. Lepu submits that the impugned order contains apparent legal errors. To substantiate this complaint, it refers to the grounds of its appeal. Whether these grounds of appeal have merit is a matter for the Court of Appeal to decide in its order in the main appeal proceedings. In any event, Lepu has failed to demonstrate that the Hamburg Local Division’s findings and considerations constitute manifest errors, i.e. factual findings or legal considerations that are clearly untenable even on the basis of a summary assessment (UPC CoA 549/2024, order of 29 October 2024, Belkin v. Philips). 6. In addition, Lepu argues that enforcing the provisional injunction would cause damage to its reputation. However, it failed to demonstrate that its interests in preventing such damage outweigh Occlutech’s interests in preventing the imminent patent infringement, as established by the Hamburg Local Division. 7. As the application for suspensive effect is decided by the judge-rapporteur expeditiously, there is no need to refer it to the standing judge. ORDER The application for suspensive effect is rejected. 3 This order was issued on 7 November 2025. Peter Blok Legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur

Key Holdings

  • An appeal does not have suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise at the motivated request of one of the parties, as per Article 74(1) UPCA.
  • Suspensive effect may be granted if the appealed order is manifestly erroneous or if the appeal becomes devoid of purpose in the absence of suspensive effect.
  • The appellant failed to demonstrate that the impugned order contained manifest errors or that its interest in preventing reputational damage outweighed the respondent's interest in preventing imminent patent infringement.
  • The application for suspensive effect was decided expeditiously by the judge-rapporteur, negating the need to refer it to the standing judge.
  • The application for suspensive effect was rejected.

Tags

  • Appeal
  • Court of Appeal
  • Damages
  • Infringement
  • Manifest Error
  • Preliminary Injunction
  • Suspensive Effect
  • Unified Patent Court

Related Cases