ARTICLE
24 March 2026

CoA, March 16, 2026, Order Concerning Review Of An Ex Parte Order For Inspection, UPC_CoA_3/2026

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
In ex parte inspection proceedings, the applicant must disclose all material facts relevant to the request, including those that may weigh against it...
Germany Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Transport topic(s)

1 Key takeaways

In ex parte inspection proceedings, the applicant must disclose all material facts relevant to the request, including those that may weigh against it

The Court of Appeal emphasizes that, in ex parte proceedings, the applicant's duty is not limited to presenting the facts supporting the requested inspection. Under R. 192.3 RoP, the applicant must also disclose material facts known to it that could affect whether the order should be granted at all, whether the defendant should be heard first, and whether the requested measure is necessary and proportionate. That duty is particularly strict because the Court is asked to act without first hearing the other side.

Material omissions in the original application can justify revocation of the inspection order on review, and those defects cannot later be repaired

The Court upheld the revocation of the inspection order because the first-instance application was found to be ambiguous and incomplete on facts central to necessity and proportionality, in particular as regards the availability of evidence and the commercial presence of Roborock products in Europe. The Court also made clear that the legality of the ex parte order must be assessed on the basis of the application as originally filed. Missing or misleading elements cannot subsequently be cured in the review proceedings or by relying on material from parallel proceedings.

2 Division

Court of Appeal, Panel 2

3 UPC number

UPC_CoA_3/2026

4 Type of proceedings

Appeal concerning review of an ex parte order for inspection under R. 197 RoP

5 Parties

Appellant / applicant in first instance:
Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd

Respondent / defendant in first instance:
Roborock (HK) Limited

6 Patent(s)

EP 3 808 512

7 Jurisdictions

Place jurisdictions

8 Body of legislation / Rules

Art. 60(1) UPCA
Art. 60(5) UPCA
R. 192.2 RoP
R. 192.3 RoP
R. 197.1 RoP

self

UPC_CoA_003-2026_Ecovacs v Roborocks

Download

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More