OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 22 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 22 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_885/2025), issued in German, the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered, without first hearing the respondent, the inspection of a DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell exhibited by STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE at the EMO trade fair in Hanover, at the request of OTEC Präzisionsfinish, proprietor of EP 2 983 864 (surface treatment of workpieces). The inspection, entrusted to an expert assisted by a bailiff, includes starting the machine, taking measurements while it runs and disabling one of its units. No security was required. The order shows how far the UPC will go in allowing an active inspection of a product at a trade fair, beyond a mere description.

Facts and procedure

The patent, granted in 2017 and not opposed, is the subject of an infringement action filed on 12 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_511/2025), to which the respondent replied with a counterclaim for revocation on 16 September 2025. An earlier order of 26 March 2025 had allowed inspection of other machines at the IDS fair in Cologne, where the PRO500 was not on show. The applicant argued that the high price and a restricted dealer network made any test purchase impossible. The EMO fair ran from 22 to 26 September 2025.

The applicable law

The division applied Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192, 194, 196, 197 and 199. Jurisdiction rests on Articles 32(1)(c) and 33(1)(b) UPCA. The measures require that infringement be possible, validity not having to be examined at this stage according to the Court of Appeal’s Maguin v Tiru order (section II), together with urgency and a risk justifying the absence of an inter partes hearing (Rules 194.2 and 197).

Question

May the court order, without hearing the respondent and without security, an active inspection of a machine exhibited at a trade fair, including running it and changing its settings?

Decision

The division found infringement possible on the basis of a brochure, a video, a technical drawing and the expert report of April 2025 (section II). Urgency lay in the fact that examining the machine at the fair was the only realistic way to substantiate the claim (section III.1), and proceeding ex parte was justified by the risk that the machine would be removed or its software altered (section III.2). The respondent’s interest in secrecy is protected by confidentiality measures: the expert’s description is not available to the applicant until a disclosure decision, only one lawyer and one patent attorney for the applicant may attend, and its officers and employees are excluded (section IV, points VII and VIII). The respondent must give access to the stand, run the machine and supply passwords. If on-site inspection is impossible, the bailiff may seize a machine and the documentation. No security was ordered, the potential harm being slight and a security requirement unduly delaying the inspection during a short fair (section VII). The alternative request for seizure at any other place in Germany was rejected as lacking specificity and proportionality (section VIII). The measures lapse if no action is brought within the time limit set, and penalty payments sanction any culpable breach.

Key points for practice

• An inspection under Rule 199 may include running the product and taking measurements during operation, provided the application describes them precisely.
• The UPC dispenses with security where the impact on the respondent is slight and any delay would be incompatible with the length of the fair.
• A request for seizure at any unspecified place in a State is rejected as vague and disproportionate.
• Practical point: the patentee should set out in its application each technical step expected of the expert, including software access and the measurements to be taken.

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, OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_260/2025), Bekaert Binjiang Steel v Siltronic, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_539/2024), myStromer v Revolt, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 June 2023 (UPC_CFI_177/2023)

Related decisions

• OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE, 17 November 2025, later order in the same inspection 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.