Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperat v Occlutech (CoA, 7 November 2025)
| Date | 7 November 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application Rop 223 |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CoA_900/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_COA_0000900/2025 |
| Parties | Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A., Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd. v. Occlutech GmbH |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 6 May 2026 : Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v Occlutech (CoA, 6 May 2026) UPC-COA-0000900/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
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
- Reputational harm from enforcing a provisional injunction is not, on its own, enough to obtain suspensive effect.
- The appellant must show a manifest error apparent on a summary assessment, not rehearse its grounds of appeal.
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
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.
Parties
- claimantLepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantOcclutech GmbH8 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantLepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 7 November 2025 Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperat v Occlutech (CoA, 7 November 2025) Application Rop 223 · UPC_CoA_900/2025
- 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
EP 2 387 951mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v Occlutech (CoA, 6 May 2026) cited in this record
- Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 29 October 2024) cited in this record
- ICPillar v ARM (CoA, 19 June 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 387 951 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.