Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 29 August 2025)

Date	29 August 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application Rop 360
Registry reference	App_33793/2025 · ORD_33879/2025
Parties	Blankenhorn GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 29 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_500/2025, ORD_33879/2025), the Mannheim Local Division declared terminated, following Blankenhorn’s cease-and-desist undertaking and nil disclosure, the provisional measures proceedings Faro Technologies had brought against it on EP 4 001 835, and ordered it to bear the costs of that part of the proceedings. The order applies Rule 360 by analogy to Art. 62 applications and allows costs to be awarded without a prior warning where a warning would have been futile.

Question

Must an application for provisional measures that has become devoid of purpose be dismissed or declared terminated, and must a respondent that gave an undertaking without having been warned bear the costs?

Decision

Rule 360 applies by analogy to Art. 62 applications, where both parties declare the matter moot, the proceedings end without the application being dismissed, the Division being bound by their declarations (Art. 76(1) UPCA). Blankenhorn is the unsuccessful party within Art. 69(1) UPCA, having given the undertaking and a nil disclosure, whether or not the undertaking was sufficient. Equity does not call for a different allocation: no warning was required, since its managing director attended the trade fair discussion with the main respondent, which had rejected the warning, and its flyer showed the same embodiment. Even otherwise, the undertaking did not clearly cover equivalent embodiments.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a distributor present when the manufacturer is warned may be sued without a separate warning and bear the costs if it then submits.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 62, 69(1) to (3) and 76(1)
Rules of Procedure: Rule 360
Case law cited: Meril v Edwards, Court of Appeal, 4 October 2024

Related decisions

Faro, 28 August 2025, order refusing reimbursement of court fees after the application was withdrawn against the main respondent.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantBlankenhorn GmbH2 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application Rop 360
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La procédure contre Blankenhorn est déclarée éteinte et les frais correspondants sont mis à sa charge, une mise en demeure préalable n'étant pas nécessaire en l'espèce.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 4 001 835 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 28 August 2025) cited in this record
Meril Life Sciences v Edwards Lifesciences (CoA, 4 October 2024) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 4 001 835`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Faro v Blankenhorn (CFI, 11 November 2025) · Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 28 August 2025) · Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 17 July 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.