LiNA Medical v Tonglu Qianyan Medtech (CFI, 18 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 18 November 2025, made without hearing the other side, the Düsseldorf Local Division granted LiNA Medical measures to preserve evidence and for inspection concerning the « disposable morcellator » exhibited by Tonglu Qianyan Medtech at its MEDICA trade fair booth, with regard to claims 1 to 6 of EP 2 593 025 (laparoscopic morcellator). The application, filed the day before, was granted in part.

The order offers a template for trade fair seizures: a sample handed to the expert, failing which inspection at the booth or seizure by a bailiff, with no security required from the applicant.

Facts and procedure

The application was filed on 17 November 2025, the first day of the fair, held in Düsseldorf until 20 November (paragraphs 1, 5 and 6). The suspicion rests mainly on a product bought from a US distributor, presented as a copy of the LiNA Xcise, and on photographs taken at the booth (paragraphs 4 and 6 to 8). Feature 1.7, the motor wiring switch, can only be checked by dismantling the product (paragraph 8).

The applicable law

The division has jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b) and 60 UPCA (paragraph 13). The measures require plausible infringement, necessity and a balancing of interests. An order without hearing the defendant requires a risk that evidence will be destroyed or lost (Rule 197.1). Security falls under Rule 196.6, the restriction on use of the results under Rule 196.2 and the exclusion of the applicant’s staff under Rule 196.5.

Question

Are the conditions for an ex parte order to preserve evidence and for inspection met for a product exhibited at a four-day trade fair, and should security be required?

Decision

Infringement was credibly shown, the exhibited product appearing identical to the US product apart from the labelling (paragraphs 14 to 17). Validity was not examined, there being no clear doubt (paragraph 18, citing Maguin v Tiru). The measure is necessary: the US product may differ from the one intended for the European market, its internal design is not accessible and no test purchase is possible within the UPC territory (paragraphs 20 to 22).

Proceeding ex parte was justified by the risk of loss of evidence: small, easily carried items and a four-day fair (paragraphs 23 and 24). The balance of interests favours the applicant, with confidentiality protecting the defendant (paragraphs 25 to 27). A bailiff was appointed for any seizure (paragraphs 28 and 29), the applicant’s staff were excluded, only one representative being allowed to attend (paragraph 30). The results may be used only in merits proceedings before the UPC against the persons named (paragraph 31).

No security was required: the harm to the defendant is minor and it may continue to offer the product (paragraph 35). The applicant advances the costs (paragraph 32). The expert files a description within four weeks. Release to the applicant requires a further decision after submissions on confidentiality, and the merits action must be brought within 31 calendar days or 20 working days of that release.

Key points for practice

• A short trade fair and the small size of the products establish the risk of loss of evidence that justifies an ex parte order (paragraphs 23 and 24).
• Buying a product outside the UPC territory does not make the measure unnecessary, as the European product may differ (paragraphs 20 to 22).
• The division may dispense with security where the measure causes the defendant only minor harm (paragraph 35).
• Practical point: pleading a cascade of measures (handover of a sample, inspection on site, seizure) lets execution adapt to conditions at the fair.

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

Related decisions

• LiNA Medical v Tonglu Qianyan Medtech, 19 December 2025, later order in the same proceedings.

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.