Court Of Appeal, June 18, 2026, Order On Provisional Measures, UPC_CoA_907/2026

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.

Explore Firm Details

New facts and evidence on appeal face a strict admissibility threshold under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP. The Court considers three factors: (a) whether the party can justify that the submissions could not reasonably have been made at first instance, (b) the relevance of the new submissions, and (c) the position of the other party.

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Benedikt Dellen’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

with readers working within the Retail & Leisure industries

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

New facts and evidence on appeal face a strict admissibility threshold under Art. 73(4) UPCA and R. 222.2 RoP.

The Court considers three factors:

(a) whether the party can justify that the submissions could not reasonably have been made at first instance,
(b) the relevance of the new submissions, and
(c) the position of the other party.

Evidence relating to a company the respondents had acquired years earlier was held inadmissible.

In the case at hand, the respondents’ absence from the oral hearing further weighed against admissibility, as the Court could not question them on complex issues raised by the prior art that was the subject of the late transmission, including translation accuracy, the disclosure of a number of the patent features and the enablement of the teaching disclosed therein.

A party absent from the oral hearing is confined to its written submissions under R. 116.2, 116.3 and 240 RoP.

The respondents did not attend the oral hearing and the Court treated them as relying only on their written case. This proved disadvantageous when late-filed evidence raised questions that the Court could not explore without the respondents’ participation.

Under Art. 69 EPC, product claims are construed based on the finished product, not the manufacturing method.

A braiding made from a single wire that is cut into multiple wires during manufacturing results in a finished product comprising multiple wires or threads. The claim requirement of “a braiding of thin wires or threads” is therefore satisfied regardless of the starting material used.

2. Division

Court of Appeal (first instance: LD Düsseldorf)

3. UPC number

UPC_CoA_907/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Proceedings for provisional measures (appeal)

5. Parties

Appellant (Applicant at first instance): Occlutech GmbH

vs.

Respondent 1 (Defendant at first instance): Lepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A.

Respondent 2 (Defendant at first instance): Lepu Medical Technology (Beijing) Co., Ltd.

6. Patent(s)

EP 1 998 686

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 116.2 RoP, R. 116.3 RoP, R. 213 RoP, R. 222.2 RoP
Art. 69 EPC, Art. 73(4) UPCA

Court of Appeal, June 18, 2026, order on provisional measures, UPC_CoA_907/2026 » UPC Law Please click here to read the full report.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]