OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros GPA Innovative (CoA, 10 July 2025)
| Date | 10 July 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Application Rop 223 |
| Registry reference | App_30685/2025 · ORD_32771/2025 |
| Parties | OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v. Steros GPA Innovative S.L. |
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 10 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_581/2025, App_30685/2025), the judge rapporteur Gougé (Court of Appeal) rejected OTEC Präzisionsfinish’s application for suspensive effect against the Hamburg Local Division’s order of 16 June 2025, which had provisionally restrained it, in 18 states, from infringing Steros GPA Innovative’s EP 4 249 647, with penalty payments of up to EUR 250,000.
Question
Should an appeal against a provisional measures order have suspensive effect where the appellant alleges errors on infringement, validity and the balance of interests, and a breach of the right to be heard?
Decision
No. An appeal has no suspensive effect unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise on a reasoned request (Art. 74(1) UPCA, paragraph 8). Exceptional circumstances are required, such as a manifestly erroneous order, after weighing the parties’ interests (paragraphs 9 and 10), and it is for the appellant to establish them (paragraph 11). OTEC’s criticisms belong to the examination of the appeal itself. No manifest error, meaning findings clearly untenable on a summary assessment, was shown (paragraph 13). No breach of fundamental procedural rights is apparent: OTEC was able to make its case, its arguments may have been considered implicitly, and the order does not manifestly lack reasons (paragraph 14). The application is decided without hearing the respondent (Rule 223.3, paragraph 16).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: challenging the reasoning of a provisional measures order is not enough for suspensive effect, the appellant must show a manifest error or a clear breach of the right to be heard.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 74(1)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 113.1 and 223
- Case law cited
- Court of Appeal: ICPillar v ARM, 19 June 2024, Sibio v Abbott, 19 August 2024, Belkin v Philips, 29 October 2024 and Bhagat v Oerlikon, 16 January 2025
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
- defendantSteros GPA Innovative S.L7 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application Rop 223
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La demande d'effet suspensif d'OTEC est rejetée : aucune erreur manifeste ni violation des droits procéduraux fondamentaux n'est établie, et les critiques relèvent de l'appel au fond.
- 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
- Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 16 January 2025) cited in this record
- Koninklijke Philips v Belkin (CoA, 29 October 2024) cited in this record
- Sibio v Abbott Diabetes Care (CoA, 19 August 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 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, 24 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.