OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE (CFI, 4 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 4 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_885/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division sets aside the order for inspection and preservation of evidence it had granted on 22 September 2025 without hearing STEROS GPA Innovative, since OTEC Präzisionsfinish brought no action on the merits within the time limit. It orders the return of the evidence, the destruction of copies and the deletion of digital copies of the detailed description, and orders OTEC to bear the costs of the proceedings, but dismisses the claim for compensation of EUR 11,390. For practitioners, the order ties the start of the period for bringing the merits action to the release of the detailed description, and treats the legal fees incurred to obtain the setting aside as a matter for cost assessment rather than compensation for damage.

Facts and procedure

On 22 September 2025, OTEC obtained, without the respondent being heard, an order for inspection and preservation of evidence concerning a « DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell » exhibited by STEROS on its stand at EMO Hannover 2025, ahead of a merits action based on EP 2 983 864 B1. The order was executed on 24 September 2025 and the expert delivered the detailed description on 8 October 2025. As STEROS asserted no confidentiality interest within the period set, the judge-rapporteur ordered on 17 November 2025 that the unredacted description be released to OTEC, warning it that the measures would lapse if no action was brought within the time limit. On 4 February 2026, STEROS applied for the measures to be set aside, for the return and destruction of the material and for compensation of EUR 11,390, on 2 April 2026, OTEC opposed the requests for return, destruction and compensation (paragraphs 1 to 14).

The applicable law

Article 60(8) UPCA provides that, at the respondent’s request, measures to preserve evidence are set aside, without prejudice to damages, if the applicant does not bring an action on the merits within 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is longer. Rule 198.1 RoP, which applies to inspections through Rule 199.2, runs that period from the date specified in the order, having regard to the date on which the report under Rule 196.4 is due (paragraphs 15 to 17). Article 60(9) UPCA and Rule 198.2 RoP allow the Court to order the applicant to pay appropriate compensation for any damage caused by the measures (paragraph 22).

Question

Where no merits action is brought in time, can the respondent obtain, in addition to the setting aside of the measures, the return of the evidence gathered and compensation covering its legal fees?

Decision

The division holds that the period began with the release of the detailed description ordered on 17 November 2025 and expired without any merits action being brought. The order of 22 September 2025 is therefore set aside (paragraphs 18 to 20). The return of the evidence, the destruction of copies, including the English-language DLyte PRO500 brochure, and the deletion of digital copies of the description are ancillary measures that remove the effects of the inspection and rest on the same rules (paragraph 21). The compensation claim is dismissed: no damage within the meaning of Article 60(9) UPCA has been shown, and the costs relied on are a matter for cost assessment under Rules 151 et seq. RoP. The division itself decides on liability for costs, applying Rule 118.6 RoP by analogy, and orders OTEC to bear them (paragraph 22).

Key points for practice

• The period for bringing the merits action runs here from the release of the detailed description to the applicant, as ordered by the judge-rapporteur (paragraph 19).
• Setting aside comes with the return, destruction and deletion of the material obtained, which remove the effects of the inspection (paragraph 21).
• Legal fees incurred to obtain the setting aside fall outside compensable damage under Article 60(9) UPCA and are recovered through cost assessment, on the basis of a decision on liability for costs made by analogy with Rule 118.6 RoP (paragraph 22).
• Practical point: an applicant that obtains an inspection must track the period opened by the release of the detailed description, without a merits action, it faces the setting aside of the measures, the loss of the evidence gathered and the costs.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 60(8) and (9)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 118.6, 151, 196.4, 198.1, 198.2 and 199.2

Related decisions

• OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA Innovative, 22 September 2025, inspection order set aside by this order.
• OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS GPA Innovative, 17 November 2025, release of the detailed description, which started the period.

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.