UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 885/2025

Sep 23, 2025·EP2983864 +1 more: METHOD AND DEVICE FOR THE SURFACE TREATMENT OF WORKPIECES

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Generic
Category
Evidence & Inspection
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: Peter Koch (PENFORCE)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Language
German
First decided
Sep 22, 2025
Last decision
May 4, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-04
    Generic Order

    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.

    Legal issues: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 deadlineObligation to return and destroy evidence obtained under a revoked inspection orderCompensation 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
    EvidenceApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199

    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.

    Legal issues:R. 262A RoP release of expert inspection reportArt. 58 UPCA confidentiality of trade secrets in expert reportRedaction of price and quantity information vs. disclosure of infringement-relevant data
  • 2025-09-22
    EvidenceApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199

    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).

    Legal issues:Inspection and evidence preservation at trade fair (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 194 RoP)Ex parte order
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-04Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-04Not public
Final Order2026-05-04Public
Receipt2026-04-14Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-14Not public
Submission Defendant/Respondent2026-04-14Not public
action.communication.general2026-04-07Not public
Receipt2026-04-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-02Not public
Submission Claimant/Applicant/Appellant2026-04-02Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-24Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-24Not public
Receipt2026-02-04Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-04Not public
Fee2026-02-04Not public
Application document Defendant2026-02-04Not public
Order2025-11-17Public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-17Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-17Not public
Order2025-11-17Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-10Not public
Order2025-11-10Public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-10Not public
Order2025-11-10Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-10Not public
Order2025-11-10Not public
Cover sheet2025-11-07Not public
Other document Claimant2025-11-07Not public
Receipt2025-11-07Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-10-30Not public
Order2025-10-30Public
Other Documents2025-10-22Not public
Other Documents2025-10-22Not public
Other Documents2025-10-10Not public
Other Documents2025-10-10Not public
Other Documents2025-10-10Not public
Other Documents2025-10-10Not public
Other Documents2025-10-10Not public
Other Documents2025-10-10Not public
Other Documents2025-10-10Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2025-09-23Not public
Final Order2025-09-23Not public
Cover sheet2025-09-23Not public
Fee2025-09-23Not public
Application2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Proof of payment2025-09-23Not public
Exhibit2025-09-23Not public
Receipt2025-09-23Not 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