UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 1536/2026

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

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional Measures
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Klaus Haft (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Joscha Torweihe (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Antonia Wilhelm (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Steffen Lenz (Lichti Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB)
Respondents
Reps: Felix Beck
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Language
German
First decided
May 6, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-06
    Procedural onlyEvidenceApplication 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.

    Legal issues: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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Receipt2026-05-28Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-28Not public
Document2026-05-28Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-12Not public
action.phaseChange.writtenPhaseReopen2026-05-06Not public
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-06Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-06Not public
Final Order2026-05-06Public
Receipt2026-05-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-04Not public
Fee2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Application for provisional measures2026-05-04Not public
Proof of payment2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-05-04Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 196.6 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Proportionality; specificity requirement

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 196.5 RoP