PAPST LICENSING v Beijing Roborock Technology (CFI, 18 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a decision of 17 August 2026, given in infringement action UPC_CFI_492/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_1309/2025, the Munich Local Division dismisses the Roborock companies’ preliminary objection and then PAPST LICENSING’s infringement action based on EP 3 030 943 (a method for operating a floor cleaning device), as infringement of the claimed features is not proven. It does not rule on the counterclaim, which was made conditional on a finding of infringement.

The decision expressly accepts a conditional counterclaim for revocation and draws the consequences for costs: the party that chose the condition will generally bear the costs of the counterclaim left undecided. It also confirms that a late and insufficiently reasoned request for production of source code will be refused.

Facts and procedure

On 3 June 2025, PAPST LICENSING GmbH & Co. KG sued Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd., Roborock Germany GmbH and Roborock International B.V. for infringement of claims 1 and 10 of EP 3 030 943 by robot vacuum cleaners. The defendants lodged a preliminary objection under Rule 19 RoP, alternatively seeking a stay pending proceedings before the Munich I Regional Court, and then filed a conditional counterclaim for revocation. The claimant filed twelve auxiliary requests to amend. The oral hearing took place on 23 June 2026.

The applicable law

The Local Division bases its jurisdiction on Art. 32 UPCA and considers Art. 30 of Regulation 1215/2012 for the stay request. Claims are construed under Art. 69 EPC and its Protocol. The fate of the counterclaim is governed by Art. 76(1) UPCA and Rule 263.3 RoP, and costs by Art. 69(2) and (3) UPCA.

Question

Do the Roborock robots implement the feature whereby a negative determination directly triggers the interruption of the cleaning task, and what becomes of a counterclaim made conditional on a finding of infringement?

Decision

The objection fails: the German proceedings concern a different patent (divisional EP 3 822 730) and territorially distinct acts, so neither declining jurisdiction nor a stay is warranted (paragraphs 21 to 25). Features 1.7 and 1.7.1 (and 10.5 and 10.5.1) require that a negative determination directly and causally lead to the cleaning task not being performed, being interrupted or ended, excluding other triggers such as an unreachable room or an obstacle (paragraphs 26 to 43).

The videos filed do not convince the panel: the behaviour observed can equally be explained by coordinate-based SLAM navigation, the stops resulting from unreachable targets (paragraphs 44 to 52). The request for production of source code under Rule 190 RoP, late and insufficiently reasoned, is refused (paragraph 54), and the app is not an essential element for indirect infringement (paragraph 55). As the condition attached to the counterclaim is not met, it is not decided (paragraphs 56 to 59). The claimant’s costs of the counterclaim are unnecessary and borne by the defendants. Overall, the claimant bears 40% of the costs and the defendants 60% (paragraphs 60 to 64).

Key points for practice

• A counterclaim for revocation may be made conditional on a finding of infringement. Switching from an unconditional to a conditional counterclaim remains a limitation within Rule 263.3 RoP.
• The party that obtains a non-decision on its conditional counterclaim will generally bear its costs (paragraphs 60 to 64).
• National proceedings on a divisional patent justify neither declining jurisdiction nor a stay under Art. 30 of Regulation 1215/2012 (paragraphs 21 to 25).
• Practical point: proving infringement of a software-driven method by videos alone is fragile, any request for production of source code should be made early and properly reasoned (paragraphs 47 and 54).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32, 69(2) and (3), 73(1), 76(1) and 82

Rules of Procedure

Rules 19, 118.8, 158.2, 190, 263.3, 354 and 355.4

European Patent Convention

Arts 64, 69 and 138(1)

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 30

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 26 February 2024, UPC_CoA_335/2023, Court of Appeal, 20 June 2025, UPC_CoA_393/2025, Emboline v AorticLab, Court of Appeal, 16 July 2026

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.