Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock Germany (CFI, 3 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 3 July 2026, given in proceedings UPC_CFI_604/2026 and UPC_CFI_2108/2026 (EP 3 808 512), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Judges Thom, presiding, Rinken and Knijff, rapporteur) dismisses as premature Ecovacs Robotics’ conditional request under Rule 190 for production of source code or pseudo-code extracts from the allegedly infringing robot vacuum cleaners, in the action against Roborock Germany GmbH, extends by ten days its time limits for the reply and the defence to the counterclaim, refuses to exclude Ecovacs’ expert reports from the proceedings and makes a preliminary confidentiality order, the final decision under Rules 262A and 262.2 being reserved. The order confirms that Rule 190 is not a tool for investigating unknown facts.

Question

Is a request for production of source code, made on condition that the defendant disputes the claimed features, admissible at this stage of the proceedings, and should expert reports challenged for lack of impartiality be excluded?

Decision

The proceedings follow an inspection order made against Roborock (HK) at the IFA fair in Berlin, set aside on 19 December 2025 for breach of Rule 192.3, a ruling upheld on appeal on 16 March 2026 (paragraph 3). The request for production was dismissed as premature. Production requires, cumulatively, a relevant fact to be proven, reasonably available supporting evidence, specified evidence within the other party’s control, protection of confidential information and proportionality, which takes account of the stage of the proceedings (paragraph 22). Ecovacs does not say which fact it seeks to prove, and the request is not based on a substantiated, contested fact (paragraph 24). As the defendant has since filed a reasoned defence with exhibits, it is unclear whether and to what extent Ecovacs will dispute it: the request is premature (paragraphs 25 and 26). The extension is granted because access to the unredacted pleading was delayed, with a corresponding extension for the defendant (paragraphs 27 and 28). Expert reports JD 11 and JD 11-I, on the behaviour of several Roborock models, remain on file: the objections of lack of impartiality under Rules 181.1 and 175.2 go to their weight and will be considered on the merits (paragraph 15). As the parties agreed on preliminary protection, access to the highlighted passages of the defence and to exhibits VB02 and VB03 is limited to Ecovacs’ UPC representatives and their assistants, subject to confidentiality obligations and a penalty payment for culpable breach. The parties must report by 10 July 2026 whether they have agreed on the Rule 262A request (paragraphs 16 to 18).

Key points for practice

• Criticism of the impartiality of a party expert goes to the weight of the report on the merits, not to its prior exclusion (paragraph 15).
• Practical point: a request for production of source code must target a specific fact that is actually disputed, made conditionally before any dispute arises, it will be dismissed as premature, without prejudice to a later request.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 41, 42, 45, 53, 58, 59 and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.3, 29, 30.1, 115, 172, 175.2, 181.1, 190, 192.3, 262.2 and 262A

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 6

Case law cited

Oppo v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024, Winnow Solutions v Orbisk, The Hague Local Division, 14 October 2024, Promosome v BioNTech, Munich Local Division, 2 April 2025, Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock (HK), Düsseldorf Local Division, 19 December 2025, Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock (HK), Court of Appeal, 16 March 2026

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.