2025-10-31 - LD Düsseldorf - Occlutech v. Lepu Medical

ENGLISH: 1. The scope of protection of a device claim regularly extends to embodiments in which the claimed structural features are present, even if they do not fully and unrestrictedly realise the function or technical advantage intended for them in the patent specification (inferior embodiment). Limiting the scope of protection of the claim to the fulfilment of a technical function or a corresponding technical advantage that is apparent to a person skilled in the art but not claimed would not adequately protect the patent proprietor. 2. If the defendant has specifically contested the applicant´s submissions, it is the defendant's responsibility to respond to this contestation by presenting facts which, with the certainty required for the ordering of provisional measures, allow the Court to make a corresponding finding. Unlike in main proceedings, there is normally no room for further clarification of the facts in summary proceedings, for example in the form of obtaining an expert opinion. 3. In PI proceedings, the burden of presentation and proof of facts concerning the validity of the patent lies with the defendant. If both parties submit translations of a prior art document and their accuracy is disputed, the defendant is obliged to provide detailed reasons why its translation is correct. If the defendant fails to do so, the Court will base its order on the applicant’s translation.

The Düsseldorf LD rejected Occlutech’s PI application against Lepu Medical’s MemoCarna cardiac occluders because infringement could not be established with sufficient certainty — neither the product images, trade fair inspection, nor the product brochure sufficed to determine whether the accused devices use multiple wires (as required by claim 1) or a single wire (as Lepu contended). The court established three important principles: (1) the scope of a device claim extends to ‘inferior embodiments’ where structural features are present but don’t fully realize the patent’s intended advantage — limiting claim scope to unclaimed functional benefits is impermissible; (2) after specific contestation by the defendant, the applicant must present facts sufficient for PI-level certainty, with no room for expert opinions in summary proceedings; (3) in PI validity disputes, the defendant bears the burden on translation accuracy for prior art documents. Obiter, the court found jurisdiction (trade fair display in Frankfurt = ‘offering’), urgency, patent validity, and favorable balance of interests.