Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock (HK) (CFI, 4 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 4 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_834/2025, ACT_35974/2025), made without hearing the other side, the Düsseldorf Local Division allowed Ecovacs Robotics to carry out an inspection and preserve evidence, at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin, concerning three robot vacuum cleaners exhibited by Roborock (HK), on the basis of European patent EP 3 808 512 for a robot localisation method. The measures are graduated, entrusted to an expert assisted by a bailiff and subject to protection of trade secrets. The application was rejected insofar as it covered any robot using LiDAR technology, which the court treated as a fishing expedition. The order shows how a trade fair can serve as the place to gather evidence against a defendant established outside Europe, while setting the limits of the exercise.

Facts and procedure

Ecovacs Robotics, proprietor of EP 3 808 512 (claims 1 to 17 relied on), had withdrawn the patent’s opt-out on 16 July 2025. On 2 September 2025 it applied to the Düsseldorf Local Division for inspection and preservation of evidence concerning the Saros 10, S8 Max V Ultra and QV 35A models that Roborock (HK), based in Hong Kong, was expected to show at IFA from 5 to 9 September 2025. It relied on the purchase and testing of a Saros 10, brochures and an expert statement, and argued that the fair was its only realistic opportunity to obtain evidence. It also sought to extend the measures to any LiDAR robot with environment mapping, a declaration on shared software and the appointment of a forensic IT expert. Validity is not discussed in the order.

The applicable law

The local division’s jurisdiction rests on Art. 32(1)(c), Art. 33(1)(a) and Art. 60 UPCA, a threatened infringement in Germany being sufficient. Orders to preserve evidence and for inspection fall under Rules 192 to 199: an order without hearing the defendant requires urgency and a risk that evidence will disappear (Rules 194.2 and 197.1), while the appointment of an expert and the limits on the use of the results are governed by Rule 196, which also allows the Court to dispense with security (Rule 196.6).

Question

May an inspection and evidence preservation be ordered at a trade fair without hearing the defendant, and how far may such measures extend beyond the products identified?

Decision

The division found infringement of the identified products plausible on the basis of the expert statement and the documents filed (Art. 60(1) UPCA). Urgency followed from the short trade fair and the lack of any other means of proving the activity of a defendant established outside Europe. Proceeding without a hearing was justified by the risk of evidence disappearing or being altered: the robots are small, can be removed by car and can be modified by a software update or memory formatting. The measures were graduated for proportionality: handover of the robots to the expert, failing that inspection at the stand, failing that physical seizure by the bailiff, justified by the bailiffs’ competence under national law (Bekaert v Siltronic). Use of the results is limited to proceedings on the merits before the UPC, the applicant’s access to the report depends on a later decision on secrecy, and no security was required, the harm being at most minor. The measures will lapse if the main action is not brought within the longer of 31 calendar days or 20 working days from disclosure of the description. The remainder was rejected: extending the order to any LiDAR robot would be a fishing expedition, copying all documents was disproportionate and the need for a forensic IT expert was not shown.

Key points for practice

• A trade fair held in a participating Member State gives a foothold for obtaining evidence against a defendant with no establishment in Europe.
• The division tiers the measures and protects trade secrets until a separate decision on disclosure of the report.
• The application must target identified products: extending it to a whole technology is refused as a fishing expedition.
• Practical point: the application should be backed by testing of a product and an expert statement, and should describe the targeted products precisely to avoid partial rejection.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 32(1)(c), Art. 33(1)(a), Art. 60 and Art. 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194, 196, 197, 199 and 220.1(c)

Case law cited

Bekaert Binjiang Steel v Siltronic, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2024, UPC_CFI_539/2024

Related decisions

• Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock (HK), 19 December 2025, later order of the local division in the same proceedings.
• Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock (HK), 16 March 2026, later Court of Appeal decision between the same parties.

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.