Opens in a new tab

OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros GPA Innovative (CoA, 10 July 2025)

Date10 July 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionApplication Rop 223
Registry referenceApp_30685/2025 · ORD_32771/2025
PartiesOTEC 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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
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

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, 24 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.