Occlutech v Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief (CFI, 31 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 31 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_630/2025), given after an inter partes hearing, the Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on Occlutech’s application for provisional measures against Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing), based on EP 1 998 686 (occlusion instrument) and directed at the MemoCarna ASD and VSD occluders. The application, admissible but unfounded (paragraph 33), was dismissed, since infringement was not established with the required certainty (paragraph 99), Occlutech bears the costs and the value in dispute was set at EUR 1,000,000.

The order is instructive on the burden of pleading in summary proceedings: faced with a specific denial by the respondent, even a thinly supported one, the applicant must put forward facts allowing the court to decide, and cannot count on expert evidence. It contrasts with the Hamburg order of 21 October 2025 which, on another patent, granted Occlutech’s application against the same products.

Facts and procedure

Occlutech, which had withdrawn on 26 May 2025 the opt-out registered in 2023, filed its application on 8 July 2025 for Germany, France, Italy and the Netherlands. Lepu filed its objection on 11 August 2025 and the hearing took place on 2 October 2025 before a panel including a technically qualified judge (paragraphs 27 to 31). Lepu attended the CSI trade fair in Frankfurt in June 2025, where the products were displayed bearing the CE mark.

The applicable law

Provisional measures require the division to be sufficiently satisfied that infringement is at least more likely than not, the burden of pleading and proof lying on the applicant (paragraph 80). International jurisdiction follows from Art. 31 UPCA and Arts 7(2), 35 and 71b of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, and internal jurisdiction from Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA. Under Rule 171.2, facts not specifically contested are held to be true.

Question

Does the division have jurisdiction over a Chinese respondent attending a German trade fair, and has the applicant shown that the attacked occluders are braided from several wires, as feature 1.1 requires?

Decision

Jurisdiction was upheld: the patent has effect in four states, and attendance at the CSI fair and a website accessible from Europe make damage in Germany plausible, which is sufficient, including for the respondent based in China (Art. 71b(2) Brussels I Recast) and in summary proceedings (paragraphs 34 to 43).

The claim was construed as requiring several wires or filaments (paragraphs 64 to 66), an embodiment that does not fully achieve the intended technical advantage remains covered (paragraph 78). The photographs do not allow the wires, gathered in the ferrule, to be counted (paragraph 84). Lepu’s assertions that a single wire is used, supported by a braiding instruction of uncertain origin, nonetheless amount to a specific denial under Rule 171.2 (paragraphs 87 to 89). Occlutech then had to put forward sufficient facts and did not do so. Expert evidence normally has no place in summary proceedings, and a brochure’s reference to « Nitinol wires » is not enough (paragraphs 90 to 92). Infringement was not established (paragraph 99).

Obiter, the division would have found an offer at the fair (paragraphs 100 to 104) and considered validity sufficiently certain: the burden of invalidity lies on the respondent, the applicant’s translation prevails where the respondent fails to justify its machine translation, and novelty was upheld over DN2 and DN1, both of which are limited to a single wire (paragraphs 105 to 113). The balance of interests would also have favoured Occlutech: there was no undue delay, relevant knowledge dating from the Paris and Dubai congresses of May 2025 and there being no general duty to monitor the market (paragraphs 119 to 127), and there was direct competition and a risk of lasting price erosion (paragraphs 128 to 134). Since infringement was not established, the application was dismissed and costs were awarded against Occlutech as the unsuccessful party (paragraphs 135 to 138). The operative part dismisses the application, orders the applicant to bear the costs and sets the value in dispute at EUR 1,000,000. The panel was presided over by Judge Thomas.

Key points for practice

• In summary proceedings, a specific denial, even a thinly supported one, is enough to put the burden back on the applicant to establish the disputed feature.
• An applicant cannot rely on expert evidence in summary proceedings to establish a hidden technical fact such as the number of wires in a braid.
• Attendance at a specialist trade fair in Germany and a website accessible from Europe are enough to found jurisdiction over a respondent based outside the EU.
• Practical point: before seeking provisional measures, patentees should gather direct technical evidence on features not visible in the product, for instance through a prior order to preserve evidence.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 31, 33(1)(a), 47(1), 62(2), 63(1) and 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 171.2, 206, 209.1, 211.2, 211.3, 211.4, 213.2 and 354.3

European Patent Convention

Arts 54 and 69, Protocol on Interpretation

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 7(2), 35 and 71b

Case law cited

Aylo Freesites v Dish, Court of Appeal, 3 September 2024, NanoString v 10x Genomics, Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, VusionGroup v Hanshow, Court of Appeal, 13 May 2024, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_182/2024), Insulet v EOFlow, Court of Appeal, 30 April 2025 (UPC_CoA_768/2024), Biolitec v Light Guide, Court of Appeal, 24 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_540/2024), Sumi Agro v Syngenta, Court of Appeal, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CoA_523/2024), Magna v Valeo, Düsseldorf Local Division, 31 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024), Occlutech v Lepu Medical, Hamburg Local Division, 21 October 2025

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.