Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 17 July 2025)

Date	17 July 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Mannheim (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic application
Case number(s)	App_33041/2025
Registry reference	App_33041/2025
Parties	PMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
Language	German

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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 order of 17 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_500/2025, App_33041/2025, ORD_33180/2025), the judge rapporteur Böttcher (Mannheim Local Division), in agreement with the presiding judge, refused to postpone the hearing of 1 September 2025 in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Faro Technologies against PMT Technologies (Suzhou) and Blankenhorn under EP 4 001 835. The order restates the high threshold for postponing a hearing in provisional measures proceedings.

Question

Does the holiday absence of a party’s lawyer and patent attorney justify postponing the hearing in provisional measures proceedings?

Decision

No. Given the urgency inherent in such proceedings, a postponement can be considered only in very special circumstances, and a representative’s holiday absence does not as such qualify. A representative may interrupt or move a holiday, or send a substitute who has been briefed. This applies all the more to the patent attorney, whose holiday begins only on the day of the hearing and who produced no booking documents. PMT’s lawyer may attend by video link, unless Faro or Blankenhorn object by 24 July 2025 through an application under Rule 9 RoP.

Key points for practice

Practical point: in provisional measures proceedings, a party cannot count on a hearing being moved because of holidays, it should arrange a substitute or ask to attend remotely.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 9 and 206

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Unitary patent, Local and central divisions (UPC).

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Four Questions That Decide a UPC Market Entry, Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: German from the language of proceedings
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

APP_33041/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantPMT Technologies (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.Follow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les congés des représentants d'une partie ne justifient pas, sans plus, le report de l'audience dans une procédure de mesures provisoires. L'avocat pourra participer par visioconférence.
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

EP 4 001 835 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 4 001 835`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): Faro v Blankenhorn (CFI, 11 November 2025) · Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 29 August 2025) · Faro Technologies v PMT Technologies (Suzhou) (CFI, 28 August 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.