Opens in a new tab

OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA Innovative (CoA, 24 July 2025)

Date24 July 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_33129/2025 · ORD_33644/2025
PartiesOTEC 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

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 4 249 647Mentioned 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 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.