Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. v Occlutech (CoA, 18 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a final order of 17 August 2026 (UPC_CoA_87/2026), the Court of Appeal dismisses the Lepu companies’ appeal against the Hamburg Local Division’s order of 20 May 2026, which had declared EUR 58,800 in penalty payments forfeited for non-compliance with a provisional injunction granted to Occlutech on EP 2 387 951. For practitioners, the order sets out what is expected of an injunction debtor online: geo-blocking the purchase option is not enough, since offering is a separate act, and the debtor answers for the third-party platforms it supplies.

Facts and procedure

By order of 21 October 2025, the Hamburg Local Division prohibited the Lepu companies from offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing the MemoCarna ASD and MemoCarna VSD devices in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Ireland, subject to penalty payments. Their appeal against that order was withdrawn. On Occlutech’s application of 2 March 2026, the Local Division declared EUR 58,800 forfeited, set a penalty of up to EUR 1,500 per day for further non-compliance and granted leave to appeal (UPC_CFI_553/2025). The Court of Appeal refused suspensive effect on 10 June 2026 and decided on the written pleadings. Lepu sought a reduction of the penalty to no more than EUR 20,000.

The applicable law

Art. 82(4) UPCA and Rule 354.4 RoP allow penalty payments to be declared forfeited for non-compliance. The Court may depart from the amounts set for reasons of proportionality, and the debtor bears the burden of proving full and timely compliance (paragraph 12). Offering and placing on the market are independent acts under Art. 25 UPCA (paragraph 14).

Question

Has an injunction debtor that blocked online purchases, but left offers on its website and on a third-party trade platform, complied with the injunction, and is the amount forfeited proportionate?

Decision

The Court finds the appeal admissible but unfounded (paragraph 10). The debtor must supervise third parties to which it assigns tasks and is responsible for a marketing platform it supplies with content (paragraph 13). Geo-blocking the purchase option is insufficient, as offering was prohibited in its own right (paragraph 14). The disclaimer on Lepu’s Dutch website having disappeared in an update of 2 December 2025, the devices were offered there for 91 days, and an « administrative oversight » does not show that compliance was impossible (paragraphs 15 and 17).

The absence of sales or harm is irrelevant, as offering covers making a product available so that others may propose to acquire it, and penalty payments, paid to the Court, are both coercive and punitive (paragraphs 18 and 19). The German-language MedicalExpo listing, confirmed by a key account manager, was an offer at least in Germany (paragraphs 23 to 25). Proportionality had already been taken into account by the Local Division, which stayed well below the maximum (paragraph 27). Lepu bears the costs of the appeal, including the application for suspensive effect (paragraph 31).

Key points for practice

• A website disclaimer excludes an offer only if the content cannot reasonably be read as offering the products in the territories covered by the injunction (paragraph 22).
• The injunction debtor answers for the third-party platforms it supplies and for its own update errors (paragraphs 13 and 17).
• The Court of Appeal considers only facts that existed before the order under appeal (paragraph 12).
• Practical point: compliance with an injunction calls for a review of every online presence, including listings on trade platforms, not merely blocking sales (paragraphs 14 and 23 to 26).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25, 34, 76 and 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.8, 211.5, 354.3 and 354.4

Case law cited

Sibio v Abbott, Court of Appeal, 19 August 2024, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025

Related decisions

• Occlutech v Lepu Medical, 21 October 2025, provisional measures order of the Hamburg Local Division.
• Occlutech v Lepu Medical, 20 May 2026, the forfeiture order under appeal.

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.