LiNA Medical v Schultz Medical (UK) (CFI, 18 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 18 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_1598/2025), made without hearing the defendant the day after the application was filed, the Düsseldorf Local Division (Judges Thomas, rapporteur, Thom and Gillet) ordered an inspection and preservation of evidence at Schultz Medical (UK)’s booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, at the request of LiNA Medical, proprietor of EP 2 593 025 (disposable laparoscopic morcellator).

The order accepts that a sample acquired outside the territory, dismantled and identical in appearance to the exhibited product, makes infringement plausible, and that the short duration of a trade fair justifies ex parte relief without security.

Facts and procedure

LiNA, maker of the LiNA Xcise morcellator, found that Schultz Medical, a UK distributor, was exhibiting at MEDICA (17 to 20 November 2025) a « MORCELLIX » morcellator identical in appearance to a product of a Chinese manufacturer that it had obtained from a US distributor and dismantled (paragraphs 4 to 8). The patent is in force in Germany, France and the United Kingdom (paragraph 3). Only dismantling could verify the feature of the switch that prevents the motor from rotating. The application, filed on 17 November 2025, sought inspection of the booth, delivery of a sample to an expert, its description and, failing that, its seizure (paragraphs 9 to 11).

The applicable law

The measure rests on Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192, 194, 196, 197 and 199 RoP, the division’s competence follows from Arts 32(1)(c) and 33(1)(b) UPCA (paragraph 13). Rule 197 governs ex parte measures and Rule 196.6 security.

Question

May a proprietor obtain, without hearing the defendant, inspection and preservation of evidence at a trade fair booth for a product of which it has only examined a sample acquired outside the territory?

Decision

The application is admissible, LiNA having indicated the intended action on the merits (paragraph 13). Infringement is plausible: examination of the US product, described as a slavish copy, shows that claims 1 to 6 are met, and the exhibited product is identical in appearance, labelling apart (paragraphs 14 to 17). Validity is not examined absent clear indications of doubt such as a negative decision (paragraph 18).

The measure is necessary, since the internal structure cannot otherwise be checked and the product is not yet sold in Europe (paragraphs 20 to 22), and it must be ordered ex parte, the products being small and the fair lasting only four days (paragraphs 23 and 24). The balance of interests favours LiNA, the confidentiality measures protecting the defendant (paragraphs 25 to 27). An expert is appointed, assisted by a bailiff for any seizure, with only one lawyer for LiNA present. The description may be used only in main proceedings against the defendant, its EU representative and the manufacturer (paragraphs 28 to 31). LiNA advances the expert’s costs (paragraph 32) and no security is required, the exhibitor suffering minor harm at most (paragraph 35). The operative part provides for delivery of a sample to the expert for examination away from the booth, failing that inspection on site, failing that seizure by a bailiff. The remainder is rejected.

Key points for practice

• A sample bought outside the territory, dismantled and identical in appearance to the exhibited product, is enough to make infringement plausible under Art. 60 UPCA.
• In evidence preservation proceedings, validity is examined only where there are clear indications of doubt.
• The short duration of a trade fair and the small size of the product justify ex parte relief without security.
• Practical point: a graduated measure (voluntary delivery of a sample, on-site inspection, then seizure) secures the evidence while limiting the burden on the exhibitor.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 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, Bekaert Binjiang Steel v Siltronic, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_539/2024), OTEC v STEROS, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 March 2025, Van Loon Beheer v Inverquark, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 October 2025

Related decisions

• LiNA Medical AG v Schultz Medical (UK), 19 December 2025, later order on disclosure of the expert’s description.

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.