UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 1536/2026

4. Mai 2026·EP2983864 +1 more: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR THE SURFACE TREATMENT OF WORKPIECES

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Written Phase
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Klaus Haft (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Joscha Torweihe (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Antonia Wilhelm (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Steffen Lenz (Lichti Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Felix Beck
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Richter
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
6. Mai 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-06
    Nur prozessualBeweisApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199

    The Local Division Düsseldorf granted an ex-parte inspection and evidence preservation order under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192/196/197/199 RoP, allowing inspection of the ANCA EPX-SF machine at the GrindingHub Stuttgart trade fair by an expert and a bailiff. The order was largely granted as requested but partly rejected, notably the request to exclude respondent's employees from the inspection and the request to authorize seizure of the machine at any location in Germany.

    Rechtsfragen:Inspection and evidence preservation order under Art. 60 UPCA and R. 192/196/197/199 RoPEx-parte order: risk of evidence destruction or unavailabilityUrgency for inspection at trade fair (GrindingHub Stuttgart 2026)Prima facie infringement of patent by ANCA EPX-SF machine ('Pulsfinish technology')No requirement to assess patent validity in inspection proceedings absent clear grounds for invalidityProportionality and trade secret protection during inspectionDistinction between urgency for inspection/evidence preservation and urgency for interim injunctionNo security for costs required given minimal harm to respondent from inspection order
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Receipt2026-05-28Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-28Nicht öffentlich
Document2026-05-28Nicht öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-12Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseReopen2026-05-06Nicht öffentlich
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-06Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-06Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-05-06Öffentlich
Receipt2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Application for provisional measures2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Possible infringement of EP 2 983 864 B1 by ANCA EPX-SF machine using 'Pulsfinish technology', evidenced by trade fair video, product brochure, product video, and trade journal article

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 60(1) UPCA

  • Urgency justified because EPX-SF is only available at GrindingHub trade fair and cannot reasonably be obtained otherwise due to high price and personalized sales process

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 194.2(a) RoP

  • Ex-parte order warranted due to risk that respondent could remove the machine from the fair or disable specific programs via software update, destroying evidence

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 192.3, 197.1 RoP

  • Prior delay in applying (machine seen at EMO September 2025) does not bar inspection order, as urgency standard for inspection differs from that for interim injunctions

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 194.2(a) vs R. 209.2(b) RoP; UPC_CoA_2/2025

  • No security for costs required because the inspection causes only minimal harm to respondent compared to an injunction, and requiring security would unduly delay the inspection given the short duration of the fair

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 196.6 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Request to exclude respondent's employees and managers from the inspection

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 196.5 RoP; Art. 60(1) UPCA

  • Request to authorize seizure of the EPX-SF at any location in Germany (not just the trade fair stand), as this was insufficiently specific and disproportionate

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Proportionality; specificity requirement

  • Request for claimant's own representatives to personally conduct the inspection (as opposed to merely attending) was not sufficiently justified

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 196.5 RoP