Komax Holding v Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment (CFI, 17 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 17 November 2025, made without hearing the other side, the Düsseldorf Local Division allowed Komax Holding to have an expert inspect Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment’s « BZW-3005 » machine at the Productronica fair in Munich, with regard to claims 1, 7 and 9 of EP 3 024 099 (cable processing device). The application was granted in part, seizure of documents being ordered only in the alternative.

The order is useful for machines whose operation cannot be seen from outside: the expert may start the machine, adjust it and switch it to test mode, and the defendant must supply the passwords.

Facts and procedure

The application was filed on 14 November 2025, four days before the fair opened (18 to 21 November 2025). Komax relied on the defendant’s website, an online listing, videos, a brochure and the findings of a patent attorney and a notary at the Shanghai fair in March 2025, where access to the machine was limited. A test purchase and customer visits were said to be impossible. The patent is in force in Germany, Italy, Romania and Serbia, with no revocation action pending.

The applicable law

The division has jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b) and 60 UPCA (paragraph 14). The measure requires possible infringement (Art. 60(1)), urgency (Rule 194.2(a)) and a balancing of interests. An ex parte order requires a risk of loss of evidence (Rules 192.3 and 197.1). Security falls under Rule 196.6 and the restriction on use of the results under Rule 196.2.

Question

Can a thorough technical inspection of a machine exhibited at a trade fair be ordered without hearing the defendant, and on what conditions?

Decision

Infringement is possible, but the control processes and operating modes cannot be seen from outside, and the Shanghai display took place outside the patent’s territory (paragraphs 15 to 17). Validity was not examined in the absence of clear indications (paragraph 18, citing Maguin v Tiru). Urgency was established, as no other realistic route to the evidence exists (paragraphs 19 to 22).

Notice to the defendant would risk the machine being withdrawn or its programming changed. Since the fair is held only every two years, it is not expected to be shown again soon (paragraphs 23 and 24). The balance of interests favours the applicant, seizure of documents applying only if inspection is impossible (paragraphs 25 to 28). Links between counsel and the expert do not automatically cast doubt on his impartiality (paragraph 29). The applicant’s staff are excluded and the results may be used only in the merits action (paragraphs 31 and 32).

The expert files a description within two weeks, limited to the questions raised, with no full infringement analysis. No security was required, the harm to the defendant being minor. The division distinguished myStromer v Revolt, where security had been imposed (paragraph 36).

Key points for practice

• Where a machine’s control processes cannot be observed from outside, an active inspection is justified: start-up, settings, test mode (paragraphs 17 and 19 to 22).
• The frequency of a fair, here every two years, adds to the risk of loss of evidence that justifies an ex parte order (paragraph 24).
• The expert’s remit may be confined to the technical questions raised, excluding any legal infringement analysis.
• Practical point: the application should list precisely the cooperation expected from the defendant, including disclosure of passwords.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

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

Rules of Procedure

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

Case law cited

Maguin v Tiru, Court of Appeal, 15 July 2025, OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 March 2025, Van Loon Beheer Nederland v Inverquark Deutschland, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 October 2025, myStromer v Revolt Zycling, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 June 2023, Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord v Siltronic, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2024

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.