Short Summary
Ecovacs obtained an ex parte inspection order from the Local Division Düsseldorf to inspect Roborock's robot vacuum cleaners at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin in connection with patent EP 3 808 512. Upon Roborock's request for review, the Local Division revoked the inspection order, finding that Ecovacs had breached its duty under R. 192.3 RoP by failing to disclose that Roborock itself was selling the contested products directly to German customers via Amazon. The Court of Appeal upheld this decision, rejecting Ecovacs' appeal and ordering Ecovacs to bear Roborock's costs.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) regarding the revocation of an ex parte inspection order.
Facts: On 2 September 2025, Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. applied to the Local Division Düsseldorf for an inspection and preservation of evidence at Roborock's exhibition stand at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin. The products at issue were the 'Roborock Saros 10', 'Roborock S8 Max V Ultra', and 'Roborock QV 35A' robot vacuum cleaners, alleged to infringe Ecovacs' patent EP 3 808 512. On 4 September 2025, the Local Division issued an ex parte inspection order under R. 192.3 and R. 197 RoP, citing the risk that the small devices could be easily transported away or altered via software updates. The inspection was carried out on 7 September 2025, and an expert report was submitted on 15 October 2025.
Roborock requested review of the inspection order. On 19 December 2025, the Local Division revoked the inspection order (except for confidentiality and non-disclosure provisions), finding that Ecovacs had breached its duty under R. 192.3 RoP to present facts completely and correctly. Specifically, Ecovacs had failed to disclose that Roborock itself was offering and distributing the contested embodiments directly to German customers via an Amazon webshop—a fact that was later included in Ecovacs' action on the merits. The Local Division held that had it known this, it would not have issued the inspection order, as Ecovacs could have obtained the same evidence through a test purchase via Amazon. The Local Division also rejected Ecovacs' argument that the inspection aimed to identify new designs, noting this was raised for the first time in review proceedings and amounted to a fishing expedition.
Ecovacs appealed, requesting that the Court of Appeal set aside the impugned order, dismiss Roborock's review request, and order Roborock to bear costs. Roborock requested that the appeal be rejected.
Court of Appeal's Reasoning: The Court of Appeal upheld the Local Division's decision. It emphasized that R. 192.3 RoP imposes a heightened duty on applicants seeking ex parte orders to disclose all material facts that might influence the Court's decision, including facts relevant to proportionality. The Court found that Ecovacs' omissions and distorted accounts of material facts could not be compensated by later submissions in response to the review request. The Court rejected Ecovacs' argument that the duty of disclosure under R. 192.3 RoP was incompatible with EU law (specifically Article 7 of Directive 2004/48), noting that the UPC cannot request preliminary rulings on the interpretation of the UPCA or Rules of Procedure, which are equated with national procedural law. The Court also rejected Ecovacs' request for a referral to the CJEU, finding no relevant EU law question requiring interpretation.
Decision: The Court of Appeal rejected the appeal and ordered Ecovacs to bear Roborock's legal costs and other expenses for the appeal proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. vs Roborock (HK) Limited is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TCL Europe SASvsCorning Incorporated
This is a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 296 274. The Claimant (TCL Europe SAS) sought to introduce new added matter arguments and a Swedish Consulting Report into the proceedings, while the Defendant (Corning Incorporated) requested a four-week extension to file its Defence to Revocation. Following a video conference with the parties, the Court accepted their agreement to admit the new pleadings and extend the deadline by two weeks.
Texas Instruments Incorporated and Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbHvsNetwork Systems Technologies LLC
Texas Instruments appealed an order of the Court of First Instance dismissing its application for security for costs against Network Systems Technologies LLC (NST) in underlying patent infringement proceedings concerning EP 1 552 399. Alongside its appeal, Texas Instruments requested expedition of the appeal proceedings under R.9.3(b) RoP. The Court of Appeal rejected the request for expedition, finding it too unspecified and insufficiently substantiated.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., and Qualcomm Germany GmbH
Network System Technologies LLC, a patent licensing company, brought an infringement action against Qualcomm entities concerning European Patent EP 1 875 683 relating to integrated circuits with data communication networks (Network on Chip technology). The Defendants filed a counterclaim for revocation. The Local Division Munich dismissed both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation, finding that the Claimant failed to present its infringement claim in a conclusive manner and that its application for production of source code evidence was unfounded.
Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI)vsHisense Gorenje Germany GmbH a. o.
The claimant, Electronics and Telecommunications Research Institute (ETRI), filed an infringement action before the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent EP 3 258 692 B1 against multiple Hisense and Gorenje entities. Following a settlement, the claimant applied to withdraw the action, with all parties consenting and agreeing to bear their own costs. The court permitted the withdrawal, set the value in dispute at €2,500,000, and ordered reimbursement of 60% of the court fees (€14,400) to the claimant.
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyagevsRobert Bosch France SAS and Others
Valeo Systèmes d'essuyage brought a patent infringement action before the central division (Paris section) of the Unified Patent Court against multiple Robert Bosch entities, including defendants based in Serbia and China. The Paris central division held it lacked competence and referred the case to the Düsseldorf Local Division. The Court of Appeal set aside those orders, holding that the central division (Paris section) has competence to hear the infringement action and that the language of proceedings is French.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.