LD Düsseldorf, 3 July 2026, Procedural Orders, UPC_CFI_604/2026

LD Düsseldorf, 3 July 2026, Procedural Orders, UPC_CFI_604/2026 | UPC_CFI_2108/2026

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.

Explore Firm Details

The Court dismissed Claimant’s request for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP as Claimant failed to identify which facts it seeks to prove, did not identify by which means of evidence and did not explain for what purpose, i.e. the necessity of such evidence.

Germany Intellectual Property

Article Insights

Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:

within Privacy topic(s)

1. Key takeaways

Strict requirements for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP

Thus, Claimant did not met the following five cumulative conditions:

There is a fact that is relevant to the substantiation of the claim and the fact requires
proof/evidence by the requesting party.

The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in
support of its claims;
The evidence to which access is requested must be “specified” and lie in control of
the other party;
The other party’s confidential information must be protected;
Any order to produce evidence must satisfy the requirements of proportionality,
equity, and fairness. One of the elements to be taken into consideration when
assessing “proportionality” is the stage of the proceedings when the request to
produce evidence is introduced.

A R. 190 RoP request could be dismissed if the Court deems it to be too early in the proceedings, based on the circumstances of the case

Although there is no timeframe for submitting a R. 190 RoP request, such a request could be dismissed if the Court deems it to be too early in the proceedings. The Court refused Claimant’s R. 190 RoP request as it was filed before Defendant’s Statement of Defense in which Defendant provided substantiated defence arguments against Claimant’s infringement allegations, with reference to exhibits containing information on the method for localization used by the attacked embodiments, to what method the R. 190 RoP-request of Claimant refers. Thus, it was unclear whether and to what extent Claimant would (and could) dispute these defence arguments and which facts (and with what evidence) still need to be proven.

No dismissal of expert opinion if objections under R. 181 RoP in conjunction with R. 175.2 RoP require a substantive assessment of the reports

The Defendant requested the dismissal of expert reports submitted by Claimant arguing that these reports are not impartial, independent or objective as required by R.181 RoP in conjunction with R. 175.2 RoP. However, the Court rejected Defendant’s requests and held that Defendant’s objections boil down to the question which weight can be attached to the findings in these reports, the objections are not merely procedural in nature but require a substantive assessment of the reports and the findings therein.

Service of redacted versions justifies extension of deadline under R. 9.3 RoP

As Claimant received only a redacted version of the Stetement of Defence and the counterclaim for revocation, the court granted an extension for the number of days between access to the redcated and the unredacted version, but declined to pre-emptively extend Defendant’s corresponding deadlines, as R. 29(d) RoP already provides a two-month period running from service of Claimant’s briefs.

2. Division

Local Division Düsseldorf

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_604/2026, UPC_CFI_2108/2026

4. Type of proceedings

Infringement action with counterclaim for revocation

5. Parties

Claimant (Infringement Action) / Respondent (Counterclaim for Revocation): Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd.

vs.

Defendant (Infringement Action) / Claimant (Counterclaim for Revocation): Roborock Germany GmbH

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 808 512 B1

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

R. 9.3 RoP, R. 29(a) RoP, R. 29(d) RoP, R. 30.1 RoP, R. 172 RoP, R. 175.2 RoP, R. 181.1 RoP, R. 190 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 262.2 RoP, Art. 58 UPCA, Art. 59 UPCA, Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA, R. 220.1(c) RoP.

To view the full article please click here.

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]