OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 26 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 26 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_260/2025, ACT_14438/2025), made without hearing the defendants, the Düsseldorf Local Division (Judges Thomas, presiding and rapporteur, Schumacher and Schober) allowed OTEC Präzisionsfinish to have two polishing machines suspected of using EP 2 983 864 inspected on the stand of STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE at the IDS trade fair in Cologne, with seizure as a fallback. The order shows how evidence can be preserved at a trade fair: the risk of the machines being removed, execution during the event and a waiver of security.

Facts and procedure

The application was filed on 25 March 2025, before any action on the merits, against STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE, parent company of the GPAINNOVA group, and against a second respondent, a specialist dealer and customer of the first, whose name does not appear in the order. The patent concerns a method and device for the surface treatment of workpieces. The accused machines are the DLyte 1D, 10D and 100D, shown at the IDS 2025 fair in Cologne from 25 to 29 March 2025. OTEC had bought a second-hand DLyte 10D for testing and had a DLyte 100D examined in Turkey, but could not access the other two models in EPC states. The opt-out initially declared was withdrawn by application of 24 March 2025.

The applicable law

The Division based its competence on Articles 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b) and 60 UPCA, and the admissibility of the application on Rule 192, the applicant intending to bring an action on the merits. The measure requires that infringement be plausible (Article 60(1) UPCA). It may be ordered without hearing the other party where there is urgency and a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed or otherwise ceasing to be available (Rules 194.2 and 197.1). Rule 196.6 allows security to be dispensed with in special circumstances.

Question

May an inspection be ordered without a hearing on an exhibitor’s stand during a trade fair, and on what terms as to execution and security?

Decision

Relying on a brochure, a video and the examination of the DLyte 10D and 100D, the Division found it possible that the DLyte 1D and 100D use the teaching of the patent. Urgency was established, and proceeding without a hearing was justified by the serious risk that the machines would be removed from the fair at short notice or that software updates would deactivate some pre-programmed polishing processes. The balance of interests favoured the applicant, confidentiality being protected by the order.

The expert, assisted by a bailiff, may put the machines into operation, require passwords to be entered, attach a smartphone to the workpiece holder to measure movement and rotation speed and repeat the measurements. Failing that, the DLyte 1D is to be inspected on the second respondent’s stand and one DLyte 100D seized with its documentation. The description, due within two weeks, may be used only in an action on the merits. The applicant’s employees are excluded (Rule 196.5), only a named lawyer and a named patent attorney may attend, bound to secrecy until the decision on disclosure of the report, taken after hearing the respondents on their confidentiality interests. No security was required: the inspection causes at most minor harm, the respondents remain free to offer and sell, and security would delay the measure given the short duration of the fair (distinguishing myStromer v Revolt). Costs are provisionally borne by the applicant, and seizure « at any other place » or at any hour was refused for lack of precision and proportionality.

Key points for practice

• Display at a trade fair, combined with the risk of rapid removal of the machines and software changes, may justify an inspection without a hearing.
• The Division dispensed with security, as the inspection left the respondents free to market the products.
• Requests without a defined location (« any other place », any hour) were rejected as imprecise and disproportionate.
• Practical point: an effective trade fair application describes the inspection steps precisely, provides a fallback seizure and names the representatives who will attend.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b), 60(1) and (6) and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194.2, 196, 197, 199 and 220.1(c)

Case law cited

Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord v Siltronic, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_539/2024), myStromer v Revolt, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 June 2023

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.