Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock (HK) (CoA, 16 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 16 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_3/2026), the Court of Appeal rejected Ecovacs Robotics’ appeal against the Düsseldorf Local Division’s order of 19 December 2025 which, on Roborock (HK)’s request for review, had revoked the ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence at the IFA 2025 trade fair (EP 3 808 512). The applicant had failed to disclose that Roborock itself sold the products in Germany through Amazon, while presenting the trade fair as the only way to prove infringement. The order holds that the duty of disclosure under Rule 192.3 RoP covers every material fact, and a central omission cannot be cured during the review.

Facts and procedure

On 2 September 2025 Ecovacs applied for inspection and preservation of evidence at Roborock’s stand at IFA in Berlin, targeting three robot vacuum cleaners, and filed its action on the merits the next day. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the application without hearing the defendant on 4 September 2025, the inspection took place on 7 September and the expert report was filed on 15 October 2025. On a request for review (Rule 197 RoP), the Division revoked the order on 19 December 2025, keeping the confidentiality orders in place, and ordered Ecovacs to bear the costs of the inspection. The language of the appeal was changed from German to English. The parties agreed to a decision without an oral hearing.

The applicable law

Measures to preserve evidence are governed by Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 199 RoP, which implement Art. 7 of Directive 2004/48. Where they are sought without hearing the defendant, Rule 192.3 RoP requires the applicant to disclose any material fact that may influence the decision. Rule 284 RoP prohibits representatives from misrepresenting facts (paragraphs 23 to 26 and 34).

Question

Must an ex parte order to preserve evidence be revoked where the applicant omitted material facts, and can the omission be cured by later submissions?

Decision

The Court restated the proportionality test (purpose, suitability, necessity, strict balancing) and the refusal of fishing requests (paragraphs 28 to 33). The application presented the trade fair as the only source of evidence and referred to distribution through affiliates, without disclosing Roborock’s direct sales via Amazon, which the action on the merits did mention. These discrepancies went to the core of the order (paragraphs 36 to 42).

The omissions went to whether the measure could be granted at all: later submissions cannot cure them, nor can other grounds justify the application retroactively, and the order could not be maintained even in amended form (paragraphs 35 and 43). Source-code arguments raised after the application were disregarded (paragraph 44). The request for a reference to the CJEU was refused: no specific question was put and the dispute concerns Rule 192.3 RoP, not the notion of relevant evidence (paragraphs 45 to 49). Ecovacs bears Roborock’s costs of the appeal.

Key points for practice

• An applicant proceeding ex parte must disclose facts adverse to it, including those relevant to proportionality (paragraph 34).
• An omission concerning a central fact leads to revocation of the measure, with no possibility of curing it at the review stage (paragraph 43).
• The UPC cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or the Rules of Procedure (paragraphs 45 to 47).
• Practical point: an application to preserve evidence should be checked against the statements in the parallel action on the merits before filing, any discrepancy on sales channels may bring the measure down and leave its costs with the applicant.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 60(1) and (5)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192.2, 192.3, 196.1, 197.1, 197.3, 199 and 284

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 3 and 7(1), recital 10

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

Art. 267

Case law cited

Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2025, Mammut v Ortovox, Court of Appeal, 25 September 2024, expert v Seoul Viosys, Court of Appeal, 20 August 2025, CJEU, Bastei Lübbe, C-149/17, 18 October 2018, CJEU, Harman International Industries, C-175/21, 17 November 2022

Related decisions

• Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock (HK), 4 September 2025, ex parte order to preserve evidence.
• Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock (HK), 19 December 2025, order under appeal revoking the measure.

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.