UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 885/2025

Sep 23, 2025·EP2983864 · METHOD AND DEVICE FOR THE SURFACE TREATMENT OF WORKPIECES

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Generic
Category
Evidence and inspection
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Machine tools
Language
German
First decided
Sep 22, 2025
Last decision
May 4, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Dusseldorf LDLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLocked
Judge Schumacher JuleLocked
Judge Walter SchoberLocked

At the UPC: OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH (9 cases)·Steros GPA Innovative S.L. (8 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 2 other proceedings

UPC CFI 511/2025·UPC CFI 260/2025

1 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent

UPC CFI 1536/2026

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-05-04
    Public

    Summary: The court revoked the inspection and evidence preservation order issued on 22 September 2025 because the claimant (OTEC) failed to file a main infringement action within the required 31-calendar-day / 20-working-day deadline after the expert's detailed description was disclosed on 17 November 2025. The claimant and its representatives were ordered to return all evidence obtained and destroy all copies. Costs of the proceedings were awarded against the claimant; the respondent's separate compensation claim was rejected as the costs claimed were not cognisable as 'damages' under the applicable provisions.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • Revocation of inspection and evidence preservation order under Art. 60(8) UPCA and R. 198.1, R. 199.2 RoP due to failure to file main action within deadline
    • Obligation to return and destroy evidence obtained under a revoked inspection order
    • Compensation for damage under Art. 60(9) UPCA and R. 198.2 RoP — whether legal costs incurred in the evidence preservation proceedings qualify as compensable 'damage'
    • Cost allocation under R. 118.6 RoP in analogous application
  • 2025-11-17
    Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the release of an expert report obtained during an earlier trade fair inspection (EMO Hannover) to OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, ruling on the redaction of trade secrets (prices, quantities, customer bank details) while allowing disclosure of technical measurements relevant to infringement.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • R. 262A RoP release of expert inspection report
    • Art. 58 UPCA confidentiality of trade secrets in expert report
    • Redaction of price and quantity information vs. disclosure of infringement-relevant data
  • 2025-09-22
    Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division granted OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L. at the Hannover Messe trade fair, concerning EP 2 983 864 B1 (surface finishing technology).

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Inspection and evidence preservation at trade fair (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 194 RoP)
    • Ex parte order
Documents
Show all 79 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Case closed2026-05-04Not public
Decision2026-05-04Not public
Final Order2026-05-04Public
Receipt2026-04-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-14Not public
Submission Defendant/Respondent2026-04-14Not public
Communication2026-04-07Not public
Receipt2026-04-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-02Not public
Submission Claimant/Applicant/Appellant2026-04-02Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The inspection and evidence preservation order must be revoked because the claimant did not commence main proceedings within 31 calendar days / 20 working days after disclosure of the expert's detailed description on 17 November 2025, as required by Art. 60(8) UPCA and R. 198.1, R. 199.2 RoP

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 60(8) UPCA; R. 198.1, R. 199.2 RoP

  • The return and destruction of all evidence obtained during execution of the order is an appropriate consequence (Folgenbeseitigung) of the revocation

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 198.1, R. 199.2 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The respondent's legal costs incurred in the evidence preservation proceedings constitute compensable 'damage' under Art. 60(9) UPCA / R. 198.2 RoP that can be quantified and awarded in the present order

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 60(9) UPCA; R. 198.2 RoP

  • The claimant argued that no compensable damage had arisen and that the amounts claimed by the respondent were unsubstantiated

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 60(9) UPCA; R. 198.2 RoP