OTEC Präzisionsfinish v ANCA Europe (CFI, 6 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 6 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_1536/2026), issued without prior hearing of the respondent, the Düsseldorf Local Division allows OTEC Präzisionsfinish to have the ANCA EPX-SF vibratory finishing machine inspected on ANCA Europe’s stand at the GrindingHub trade fair in Stuttgart (5 to 8 May 2026), with regard to EP 2 983 864 B1. The order frames the measure closely (measurements in operation, seizure in the alternative, expert and bailiff, a narrow circle of representatives) and makes two useful points: urgency for preserving evidence is assessed separately from urgency for provisional measures, and no security is required for a short measure at a trade fair.

Facts and procedure

The application was filed on 4 May 2026, ahead of an intended main action before the Düsseldorf Local Division. OTEC argued that the machine, shown at EMO Hanover in September 2025, is expensive, sold on a personalised basis and recently launched, with no known common customers. ANCA had answered a request for confirmation by stating that the workpiece is not rotated under continuous acceleration with continuously varying speed. The patent is subject to a counterclaim for revocation in other proceedings (UPC_CFI_511/2025).

The applicable law

Art. 60 UPCA allows measures to preserve evidence and the inspection of premises where the applicant has presented reasonably available evidence making infringement plausible. Rules 192 to 199 RoP govern the application, urgency (Rule 194.2(a) RoP), proceedings without hearing the respondent (Rule 197 RoP), the appointment of an expert, confidentiality and security (Rule 196.6 RoP).

Question

Can an inspection without prior hearing of a machine exhibited at a trade fair be ordered although the patentee had known of the product for several months, and on what terms?

Decision

Jurisdiction and admissibility are established (paragraph 11). Infringement is made plausible by the brochure, videos, an article and ANCA’s reply (paragraphs 12 to 14), with no need to address validity absent a clear indication of invalidity (paragraph 15). Urgency is made out: substantiating infringement requires examining the machine, which is hard to obtain, the time since September 2025 is not decisive, since delay matters only if it has removed the interest in obtaining evidence (paragraphs 16 to 20). The risk that the machine is removed or pre-programmed processes are disabled by a software update justifies proceeding without hearing the respondent (paragraphs 21 and 22).

The inspection is entrusted to a patent attorney assisted by a bailiff, who has competence for seizure under national law (paragraphs 27, 28 and 30). Only two named representatives may attend, to the exclusion of OTEC’s officers and employees (paragraphs 31 and 32), and the description may be used only in the main proceedings (paragraph 33). No security is required, since the harm is minor and security would risk delaying a measure tied to a short fair (paragraph 37). Seizure ‘elsewhere in Germany’ is refused for lack of precision and proportionality (paragraph 38). The measures will lapse if the main action is not brought within the set period.

Key points for practice

• Delay after learning of the product does not bar a preservation measure unless it has removed the interest in obtaining evidence.
• A trade fair offers a useful window to inspect expensive machines distributed on a personalised basis.
• The Division may dispense with security where the measure is brief and does not stop the respondent from continuing its offers.
• Practical point: the application should set out the measurement protocol step by step (start-up, settings, sensors, repetitions), the operative part adopts that protocol.

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, Valinea Energie v Tiru, Court of Appeal, 15 July 2025, OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros, 22 September 2025, LiNA Medical v Tonglu, 18 November 2025, Bekaert Binjiang Steel v Siltronic, 18 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_539/2024), OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros, 26 March 2025, myStromer v Revolt, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 June 2023 (UPC_CFI_177/2023)

Related decisions

• OTEC Präzisionsfinish v ANCA Europe, 4 August 2026, decision confirming the settlement reached after the inspection.

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.