Opens in a new tab

OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 17 November 2025)

Date17 November 2025
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_885/2025
Registry referenceUPC_CFI_885/2025
PartiesOTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v. STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 17 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_885/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division released to OTEC Präzisionsfinish and its representatives the unredacted description prepared by the expert after the inspection carried out at STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE’s stand at the EMO trade fair in Hanover (EP 2 983 864). It shows the ordinary sequel to an inspection where the respondent asserts no confidentiality interest, and it restates the time limit for starting the main action.

Question

May the expert’s description and its annexes be disclosed to the applicant itself where the respondent, having been invited to do so, has asserted no confidentiality interest?

Decision

The respondent, invited to assert its interests by 13 November 2025, did not do so. The description and its annexes were therefore disclosed to the applicant and its representatives, and the confidentiality obligation in Section X of the order of 22 September 2025 was lifted as regards the applicant for the facts they contain. The order warns the applicant that the measures will be revoked or cease to have effect unless the main action is brought within 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is longer, running from the upload of the order to the CMS (Art. 60(8) UPCA, Rules 198.1 and 199.2). The results may be used only in the main proceedings against the respondent (Rules 196.2 and 199.2).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 60(8)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 194, 196, 197, 198.1 and 199
Case law cited
Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM, Court of Appeal, 23 July 2024, OTEC v Steros, Düsseldorf Local Division, 12 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_260/2025)

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Order to preserve evidence (UPC).

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Evidence Before Argument: The French Weapon Foreign Patent Holders Forget (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_885/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 22 September 2025 OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 22 September 2025) Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 · UPC_CFI_885/2025

    La division ordonne sans audition préalable l'inspection active d'une machine exposée au salon EMO, avec mise en fonctionnement et mesures par un expert, sous confidentialité et sans garantie, et rejette la saisie en tout autre lieu.

  2. 17 November 2025 OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 17 November 2025) Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 · UPC_CFI_885/2025
  3. 4 May 2026 OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 4 May 2026) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_885/2025

    Faute d'action au fond dans le délai ouvert par la communication de la description détaillée, l'ordonnance d'inspection est levée avec restitution et destruction des preuves, les frais étant mis à la charge d'OTEC. La demande d'indemnisation est rejetée.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Faute pour le défendeur d'avoir invoqué un intérêt de confidentialité, la description de l'expert est communiquée intégralement au requérant, la confidentialité est levée à son égard et le délai pour agir au fond est rappelé.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 983 864Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 6 other decision(s): OTEC Präzisionsfinish v ANCA Europe (CFI, 4 August 2026) · OTEC Präzisionsfinish v ANCA Europe (CFI, 2 July 2026) · OTEC Präzisionsfinish v ANCA Europe (CFI, 6 May 2026) · OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 4 May 2026) · OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 22 September 2025) · OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 26 March 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.