Key takeaways
In ex parte inspection proceedings, the applicant must disclose all material facts relevant to the request, including those that may weigh against it
The Court of Appeal emphasizes that, in ex parte proceedings, the applicant’s duty is not limited to presenting the facts supporting the requested inspection. Under R. 192.3 RoP, the applicant must also disclose material facts known to it that could affect whether the order should be granted at all, whether the defendant should be heard first, and whether the requested measure is necessary and proportionate. That duty is particularly strict because the Court is asked to act without first hearing the other side.
Material omissions in the original application can justify revocation of the inspection order on review, and those defects cannot later be repaired
The Court upheld the revocation of the inspection order because the first-instance application was found to be ambiguous and incomplete on facts central to necessity and proportionality, in particular as regards the availability of evidence and the commercial presence of Roborock products in Europe. The Court also made clear that the legality of the ex parte order must be assessed on the basis of the application as originally filed. Missing or misleading elements cannot subsequently be cured in the review proceedings or by relying on material from parallel proceedings.
Division
Court of Appeal, Panel 2
UPC number
UPC_CoA_3/2026
Type of proceedings
Appeal concerning review of an ex parte order for inspection under R. 197 RoP
Parties
Appellant / applicant in first instance:
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd
Respondent / defendant in first instance:
Roborock (HK) Limited
Patent(s)
EP 3 808 512
Jurisdictions
Place jurisdictions
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 60(1) UPCA
Art. 60(5) UPCA
R. 192.2 RoP
R. 192.3 RoP
R. 197.1 RoP
