Key takeaways
Ex parte orders re. inspection and preservation of evidence at a trade fair booth can be ordered and executed within days under Art. 60 UPCA, R. 194(d), 196, 197, 199 RoP
The applicant filed an ex parte application for inspection and preseveration of evidence targeting the respondent’s trade fair booth. The UPC granted the requested order just two days later, and it was enforced the very next day at the “GrindingHub” trade fair in Stuttgart.
The court-appointed expert’s detailed written description is the primary documentary result of an inspection order, and its upload to the CMS triggers the subsequent disclosure procedure
Following execution of the inspection, the court-appointed expert prepared a detailed written description of the findings, which was uploaded to the CMS by the Sub-Registry. This description constitutes the central documentary evidence from the inspection measure and triggers the disclosure procedure governed by Art. 60(8) UPCA, R. 198(1) and R. 199(2) RoP.
Before disclosure to the applicant, the respondent must receive access to the unredacted expert description and be given the opportunity to assert trade secret interests
In a first step only respondent’s legal representatives get access to the unredacted version of the expert description, allowing the respondent to identify any protectable/redactable confidential information before the report was released to the applicant as a direct competitor. This two-step procedure ensures inspection measures do not unreasonably prejudice the inspected party’s legitimate business interests.
Absence of confidentiality objections by the respondent triggers the full and unredacted disclosure of the expert’s findings to the applicant and the lifting of prior confidentiality protection orders
The respondent’s failure to identify confidential information triggered full disclosure of the unredacted expert description — including all annexes — to both the applicant and its legal representatives, while prior confidentiality orders were lifted referencing UPC_CoA_177/2024 (Progress Maschinen v. AWM) and UPC_CFI_260/2025 (Otec v. Steros).
The outcome of the measures to preserve evidence and inspection may only be used in the proceedings on the merits of the case
Pursuant to R. 196(2) and R. 199(2) RoP, the outcome of the measures to preserve evidence and inspection may only be used in the proceedings on the merits of the case. This prevents evidence obtained through a court-ordered inspection from being repurposed for uses beyond the specific patent dispute, thereby protecting the respondent from broader misuse of commercially sensitive information.
Deadline for the applicant to commence proceedings on the merits after disclosure of the expert’s description
According to R. 198.1 RoP the applicant has to commence proceedings on the merits within 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is the longer, from the date the order allowing discloure of the expert’s description to the applicant has been entered into the CMS. Otherwise, the order to preserve evidence and inspection is revoked upon respondent’s request. This mechanism ensures that preliminary evidence measures remain inherently tied to proceedings on the merits and do not stand independently.
Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_1536/2026
Type of proceedings
Application for Inspection and Preservation of Evidence (Preliminary Proceedings)
Parties
Applicant: OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
vs.
Respondent: ANCA Europe GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 2 983 864 B1
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 60 UPCA, Art. 60(8) UPCA, R. 194(d) RoP, R. 196 RoP, R. 196(2) RoP, R. 197 RoP, R. 198(1) RoP, R. 199(2) RoP
