Case: OTEC v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE — Local Division Düsseldorf, 4 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_885/2025)
The Düsseldorf Local Division has clarified the consequences of a failed follow-up after an ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence. If the applicant does not bring proceedings on the merits within the period set by Art. 60(8) UPCA and Rule 198.1 RoP, the order must be lifted on request of the respondent. The Court also ordered the return, destruction and deletion of the evidence obtained, but rejected a request for compensation where the respondent had only relied on legal costs rather than substantiated damage.
OTEC had obtained an ex parte order on 22 September 2025 permitting inspection and preservation of evidence at STEROS’ trade fair booth at EMO Hannover 2025. The order allowed an expert and a bailiff to inspect a functional “DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell”, including operation of the machine and measurement of the movement and rotational speed of the workpiece holder.
The order was executed on 24 September 2025. The expert prepared his written description on 8 October 2025. After STEROS did not assert confidentiality interests, the judge-rapporteur released the unredacted expert report to OTEC on 17 November 2025. The Court also reminded OTEC that the inspection and preservation measures would be lifted or cease to have effect if no main action was brought within the applicable period.
No main action was filed within that period. STEROS therefore applied for the inspection and preservation order to be lifted, for return and destruction of the evidence obtained, and for compensation of EUR 11,390.
The Court held that the requirements for lifting the order were met. Under Art. 60(8) UPCA and Rule 198.1 RoP, an order for preserving evidence must be lifted or otherwise cease to have effect if the applicant does not initiate proceedings on the merits within the prescribed period. Rule 199.2 RoP applies the same mechanism to inspection orders.
The relevant period began when the expert description was disclosed to OTEC, i.e. upon the release order of 17 November 2025. Since no main action was filed within 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever was longer, the inspection and preservation order had to be lifted.
The Court further ordered OTEC and its legal and patent attorney representatives to return all evidence obtained through the measures, destroy copies, and irreversibly delete digital copies of the expert description. The Court treated this as a measure to remove the consequences of the lifted order and based it on the same provisions.
However, the Court rejected STEROS’ request for compensation. Art. 60(9) UPCA and Rule 198.2 RoP may justify compensation for damage caused by evidence preservation measures. But STEROS had not identified such damage. The legal costs incurred in the inspection proceedings were not “damage” in this sense. They must instead be pursued in cost determination proceedings under Rule 151 et seq. RoP. The Court therefore made a cost decision in corresponding application of Rule 118.6 RoP, ordering OTEC to bear the costs of the inspection and evidence preservation proceedings.
