The detailed decision handed down on 4 September 2025 by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) at first instance confirms the new court’s willingness to use its powers to protect patent rights in situations where there is a risk that evidence may disappear.
In the dispute between Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. and Roborock (HK) Limited, the Court relied on Article 60 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court (UPCA) to authorise a measure for preserving evidence (saisie-contrefaçon) at the stand of a foreign exhibitor during a major international trade fair, IFA 2025.
Determining Jurisdiction and the Notion of Imminent Infringement
The first key aspect of the decision concerns territorial jurisdiction. The Düsseldorf Local Division affirmed its jurisdiction on the basis of Articles 32(1)(c) and 33(1)(a) UPCA. It held that the mere possibility of imminent infringement on German territory, materialised by the display of the disputed products at the IFA trade fair in Berlin, was sufficient to establish the competence of the German local division.
This interpretation is significant, as it enables patent holders to react swiftly and effectively to temporary threats of infringement, often arising from international actors at commercial events.
The patent at issue is EP 3 808 512 B1, relating to a robotic localisation method. The claimant, Ecovacs, demonstrated prima facie infringement.
To do so, it provided detailed technical reasoning supported by an expert declaration (exhibit JD 10) and numerous documents (exhibits JD 7, 8, 11 to 14), explaining why it considered that all the technical features of the patent were implemented in Roborock’s vacuum robots of the “Roborock Saros 10”, “Roborock S8” and “Roborock QV 35” series.
The Need for Ex Parte Proceedings in Light of the Risk of Dissipation of Evidence
The fact that the order was issued in non-inter partes (ex parte) proceedings, in accordance with Rules 192.3 and 197 of the Rules of Procedure, is what gives this decision its immediate enforceability and striking character. The Düsseldorf Local Division accepted the argument that there was a demonstrable risk that the evidence might be destroyed or no longer available (Rule 197.1 Alt. 2 RoP).
This risk was intrinsically linked to the trade fair context: the exhibition was only temporary, and the main defendant was a company registered in Hong Kong. Any prior notice would have allowed the products to leave German territory once the fair had ended, making subsequent enforcement of the measures pointless.
The Court therefore prioritised effective protection of the right to evidence over strict application of the adversarial principle at this initial stage.
The Broad Scope of the Inspection Measures
The Düsseldorf Local Division appointed a bailiff (Gerichtsvollzieher) and a technical expert, a patent attorney, to carry out the inspection at Roborock’s stand H9-127 at IFA 2025. The order granted this team an exceptionally broad and detailed inspection mandate.
The authorised measures went well beyond simple visual observation. In particular, the team was allowed to: operate and handle the robots in order to observe their functioning; carry out technical measurements and repeat tests to ensure the reliability of the data collected; access and secure all items of evidence (Documentation) relating not only to the alleged infringement itself, but also to the origin, delivery and manufacturing processes of the devices.
The most notable aspect was the authorisation to examine digital media and internal documents, expressly including design schematics, circuit diagrams and, a key element for modern robotics, program code and wiring diagrams. This shows the UPC’s recognition that software and electronic layers often need to be examined to prove infringement of complex patents.
To ensure full documentation, the inspection team was authorised to make copies, take photographs and videos, and to open the devices by removing their covers in order to inspect internal components.
Confidentiality Rules and Control of the Use of Evidence
To preserve the balance of rights and protect the defendant’s trade secrets, the Düsseldorf Local Division coupled the order with a strict duty of secrecy and confidentiality for everyone involved in the inspection.
The expert was required to submit to the Düsseldorf Local Division, within four weeks of the measures being carried out, a detailed written description of the robots and their relevant features. This report and all secured evidence are initially placed under a confidentiality regime. Their use is strictly limited to the filing and support of a main infringement action.
The Düsseldorf Local Division further specified that it would subsequently decide on the scope and conditions of disclosure of this detailed description to the claimant. This judicial filtering mechanism is a key procedural safeguard, designed to prevent the claimant from gaining indiscriminate access to commercially sensitive information that may ultimately prove irrelevant to the infringement dispute.
Conclusion
The Ecovacs v. Roborock decision of the Düsseldorf Local Division confirms the Unified Patent Court’s willingness to make use of the tools at its disposal to ensure the preservation of evidence, setting a strong precedent for infringement actions linked to international trade fairs.
December 2025
Contributing author
Samuel Deschamps
Partner | European Patent Attorney