Occlutech v Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief (CFI, 20 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_553/2025), the Hamburg Local Division ordered two Lepu Medical group companies to pay the Court EUR 58,800 for failing to comply with the injunction granted on 21 October 2025 under Occlutech’s EP 2 387 951 on a braided occlusion device, and attached a recurring penalty of up to EUR 1,500 per day to any further breach.

The order bears directly on the enforcement of injunctions: it takes an autonomous, economic view of offering, holds that geo-blocking the purchase function and a disclaimer contradicted by the page content are not enough, and makes the defendant answerable for the service providers who run its websites.

Facts and procedure

By order of 21 October 2025, the Hamburg Local Division had prohibited the defendants from offering, placing on the market, using, importing or storing the contested device in Germany, France, Italy, the Netherlands and Ireland, on pain of a penalty of up to EUR 250,000 per breach. Their appeal, lodged on 6 November 2025, was withdrawn on 30 April 2026. Occlutech then alleged three breaches: a product page on Lepu Medical (Europe)’s website without a valid disclaimer, a German-language listing on the MedicalExpo B2B platform with a price enquiry function, and an email exchange with a key account manager suggesting sales in Europe. It sought up to EUR 250,000 and a daily penalty of EUR 25,000, the defendants asked for dismissal or an oral hearing.

The applicable law

Art. 82(4) UPCA allows the Court to order penalty payments for non-compliance with its orders, in an amount proportionate to the importance of the order. Rules 354.3 and 354.4 RoP govern their implementation. The concept of offering is that of Art. 25(a) UPCA.

Question

Do an online product page, a listing on a B2B platform with geo-blocked purchasing and commercial email exchanges breach an injunction against offering, and on what criteria should the amount payable be set?

Decision

Compliance must be full and permanent. The burden of proof lies with the defendants, who must take effective measures to secure it (paragraphs 34 and 35). Offering is to be construed autonomously and in economic terms: the product page, with its enquiry function, is an offer, and it was accessible without a disclaimer for 91 days, the defendants are answerable for updates made by the providers they engaged to run the site (paragraphs 37 to 41).

On MedicalExpo, the listing was created by the defendants. Geo-blocking the purchase option is not enough, since offering and placing on the market are separately prohibited. Automatic translation is no excuse, and a disclaimer does not suffice where German-language content and an invitation to request a price contradict it (paragraphs 42 to 46). The key account manager’s replies deprived the disclaimer of effect, and the enquiry was not a bad-faith test purchase (paragraphs 47 and 48).

The amount reflects the nature, scope and duration of the breach, fault, the risk of repetition and the importance of the order to the applicant (paragraphs 49 to 51): EUR 500 per day for 91 days for the website, EUR 45,500, and EUR 100 per day for 133 days for the platform, EUR 13,300, reduced because a disclaimer existed and no units reached the market (paragraphs 52 and 53). The Local Division decided without a hearing, the facts being largely undisputed (paragraph 55), ordered the defendants to bear the costs, set the value of the enforcement proceedings at EUR 100,000 and granted leave to appeal.

Key points for practice

• A product page with an enquiry function is an offer within the meaning of Art. 25(a) UPCA.
• Geo-blocking the purchase function does not end the offer where the content is addressed to the public in the territory covered by the injunction.
• The defendant is answerable for content published by its service providers and must actively supervise them once the injunction is granted.
• Practical point: complying with an injunction calls for an immediate audit of every online presence, including third-party platforms and sales communications.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 25(a), 73(2)(b) and 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.8, 211.5, 220.2, 354.3 and 354.4

Case law cited

Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 30 May 2025 (UPC_CoA_845/2024), Philips v Belkin, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_534/2024), Belkin v Philips, Court of Appeal, 3 October 2025 (UPC_CoA_683/2024), Milan Central Division, 4 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1167/2025), 10x Genomics v NanoString, Munich Local Division, 5 December 2023, myStromer v Revolt Zycling, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2023

Related decisions

• Occlutech v Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief, 21 October 2025, order whose enforcement is at issue.
• Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief v Occlutech, 6 May 2026, Court of Appeal decision closing the appeal after its withdrawal.

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.