Opens in a new tab

Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperat v Occlutech (CoA, 7 November 2025)

Date7 November 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication Rop 223
Case number(s)UPC_CoA_900/2025
Registry referenceUPC_COA_0000900/2025
PartiesLepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Occlutech GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 7 November 2025 (UPC_CoA_900/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Court of Appeal rejected the application for suspensive effect filed by Lepu Medical (Europe) and Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) against the Hamburg Local Division’s order of 21 October 2025 granting Occlutech a provisional injunction (EP 2 387 951). The order applies the strict manifest error test without any relaxation.

Question

Should an appeal against a provisional injunction have suspensive effect where the appellant relies on errors of law and on reputational harm caused by enforcement?

Decision

An appeal has no suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise on a reasoned application (Art. 74(1) UPCA), an exception requires circumstances justifying it, after weighing the parties’ interests, for instance a manifestly erroneous order or an appeal that would become devoid of purpose without suspensive effect (paragraph 4). The alleged errors are a matter for the appeal itself, and Lepu did not show that the Local Division’s findings were manifestly erroneous, that is clearly untenable even on a summary assessment (paragraph 5). The reputational harm relied on did not outweigh Occlutech’s interest in preventing the imminent infringement found below (paragraph 6). As the judge-rapporteur decided without delay, referral to the standing judge under Rule 223.4 was unnecessary (paragraph 7). The application was rejected.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 74(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rule 223
Case law cited
ICPillar v ARM, Court of Appeal, 19 June 2024, Koninklijke Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 29 October 2024

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CoA_900/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 7 November 2025 Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperat v Occlutech (CoA, 7 November 2025) Application Rop 223 · UPC_CoA_900/2025
  2. 6 May 2026 Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v Occlutech (CoA, 6 May 2026) Appeal RoP220.1 · UPC_CoA_900/2025

    La cour d'appel autorise le désistement de l'appel de Lepu Medical, clôt la procédure et met les frais d'appel d'Occlutech à la charge solidaire des appelantes.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application Rop 223
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La demande d'effet suspensif est rejetée : Lepu ne démontre pas d'erreur manifeste de l'ordonnance de Hambourg, et l'atteinte à sa réputation ne l'emporte pas sur l'intérêt d'Occlutech à prévenir la contrefaçon imminente.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal.
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 387 951Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v Occlutech (CoA, 18 August 202 · Occlutech v Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief (CFI, 20 May 2026) · Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v Occlutech (CoA, 6 May 2026) · Occlutech v Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) (CFI, 21 October 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.