MC
Marks & Clerk
More
Marks & Clerk is one of the UK’s foremost firms of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys. Our attorneys and solicitors are wired directly into the UK’s leading business and innovation economies. Alongside this we have offices in 9 international locations covering the EU, Canada and Asia, meaning we offer clients the best possible service locally, nationally and internationally.
In two recent decisions on interim measures, in disputes between Occlutech and Lepu before the Dusseldorf and Hamburg local divisions, defendants Lepu challenged the urgency with which Occlutech had brought their actions…
United Kingdom
Intellectual Property
To print this article, all you need is to be registered or login on Mondaq.com.
Article Insights
Thomas Prock’s articles from Marks & Clerk are most popular:
with readers working within the Metals & Mining and Telecomms industries
In two recent decisions on interim measures, in disputes between
Occlutech and Lepu before the Dusseldorf and Hamburg local
divisions, defendants Lepu challenged the urgency with which
Occlutech had brought their actions for interim measures,
suggesting that Occlutech’s possession since 2023 of a product
catalogue containing the contested embodiments rendered actions
filed in 2025 too late to meet the urgency standards required.
Neither the Dusseldorf nor the Hamburg Local Divisions concurred
with the defendant’s line of argument. It was noted that, since
a CE marking is required for placing a medical device on the market
in any EU member state, the timer for urgency could not be
considered to have begun until the defendant’s obtained the CE
mark for the contested products, with any knowledge of the products
before this date considered irrelevant.
Notably, however, Occlutech had brought their action against
Lepu before the Hamburg division several months after Lepu first
publicised their acquisition of the required CE markings, with the
action before the Dusseldorf division following two weeks later.
However, the Court noted that there was no specific requirement for
Occlutech to request interim measurements immediately upon learning
of the alleged infringements, with it being well within the
applicant’s rights to conduct an infringement analysis and
consider the results thereof. Further, a two-week delay between
actions was considered a reasonable amount of time for the
applicant to take to prepare the submissions for the second
proceedings.
In their assessment, both divisions cited previous decisions in
disputes between Ballinno and UEFA, 10x Genomics and Nanostring,
and Ortovox and Mammut, reaffirming that the urgency required for
the order of provisional measures is only lacking “if the
injured party has pursued their claims so negligently and
hesitantly that it can be objectively assumed that they have no
interest in the rapid enforcement of their rights and it therefore
does not appear appropriate to order provisional measures”.
Applicants will be no doubt relieved to see the UPC confirm that
their access to justice will not be unduly limited as a result of
the pre-filing actions required for the Applicant to ensure
diligence.
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.