OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA Innovative (CoA, 24 July 2025)
| Date | 24 July 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_33129/2025 · ORD_33644/2025 |
| Parties | OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
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 order of 24 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_579/2025), Judge Gougé, judge-rapporteur at the Court of Appeal, granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish two weeks to reply to a new experiment filed by STEROS GPA Innovative with its statement of response, in the appeal against the provisional measures order issued by the Hamburg Local Division on 16 June 2025 on EP 4 249 647. A useful clarification on when an additional round of written pleadings may exceptionally be allowed on appeal.
Question
May the appellant be allowed to respond in writing to new facts and evidence first submitted in the respondent’s statement of response?
Decision
Yes, exceptionally. On appeal, the written procedure is limited to the statement of grounds of appeal and the statement of response, save for a cross-appeal (paragraph 7), Rule 36 RoP nevertheless allows further pleadings on a reasoned request, in particular where due process so requires (paragraph 8). STEROS filed for the first time a new test reproducing a claimed feature, with a witness statement (Exhibits GRU 15 to 17) (paragraph 9). Without prejudging the admissibility of that material, to be decided later, due process justifies allowing OTEC to respond (paragraph 10). In provisional measures proceedings, two weeks is reasonable, rather than the three requested (paragraph 11).
Key points for practice
- An appellant faced with a new experiment in the statement of response may obtain a right of reply limited to that material.
- Practical point: a Rule 36 request should target the new passages and exhibits precisely, on appeal in provisional measures, the time allowed remains short.
Provisions applied
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 36, 237 and 238
- Case law cited
- Scandit v Hand Held Products, Court of Appeal, 1 November 2024 (UPC_CoA_520/2024)
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.
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.
Proceedings
Parties
- claimantOTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH11 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Generic application
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le juge rapporteur autorise OTEC à déposer sous deux semaines un mémoire supplémentaire limité à l'expérimentation nouvelle et aux arguments correspondants du mémoire en réponse de STEROS.
- Appeal
- Decision of the Court of Appeal.
- Instance
- Court of Appeal decision.
Patents mentioned
EP 4 249 647mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA Innovative (CoA, 7 November 2025) cited in this record
- Steros GPA Innovative v OTEC Präzisionsfinish (CFI, 16 June 2025) cited in this record
- Scandit v Hand Held Products (CoA, 1 November 2024) cited in this record
- Promosome v BioNTech (CFI, UPC_CFI_846/2024, 7 July 2026) cites this decision
- UPM-Kymmene v International N&H Denmark (CFI, 4 August 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 249 647 | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA Innovative (CoA, 7 November 2025) · OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros GPA Innovative (CoA, 10 July 2025) · Steros GPA Innovative v OTEC Präzisionsfinish (CFI, 16 June 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.