LiNA Medical AG v. Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.

This case concerns an application for preservation of evidence and inspection filed by LiNA Medical AG against Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd. before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 18 November 2025.

The Applicant, LiNA Medical AG, is the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1, titled "Laparoscopic morcellator." The patent was filed on 6 July 2011 (claiming priority from US 836 957 of 15 July 2010) and was granted on 10 December 2014. It is currently in force in Germany, France, and the United Kingdom. The patent claims a disposable laparoscopic morcellator for removing tissue through a small incision, featuring an elongated cylinder with a cutting edge, a trocar, a housing, a motor, a battery, and a switch mechanism. LiNA Medical manufactures the LiNA Xcise™, a ready-to-use cordless laparoscopic morcellator.

The Defendant, Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., is a Chinese manufacturer of disposable medical products for laparoscopy, urology, orthopaedics, and gynaecology. The Defendant was exhibiting a "disposable morcellator" at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf (17-20 November 2025). The Applicant argued that the exhibited product looked identical to a product previously obtained from outside the UPC territory through an American distributor, which was manufactured by the Defendant. The Applicant suspected this product was a slavish copy of the LiNA Xcise™ and potentially infringed the patent. The Applicant contended that whether the product infringed the patent could only be determined by disassembling and analysing it, particularly with regard to the switch feature of claim 1.

The Applicant requested an order for prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve evidence of the alleged infringement, including an inspection by an independent expert at the Defendant's exhibition booth, without prior hearing of the Defendant. The application was based on Articles 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure.

The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and preservation of evidence procedure to be carried out by an independent expert at the MEDICA trade fair. The order included detailed provisions for: (I) the inspection procedure to identify whether the Defendant's product complies with features claimed in claims 1-6 of the patent; (II) seizure of the disposable morcellator and related documents; (III) preparation of a detailed description by the expert; (IV) confidentiality measures requiring all persons involved to keep facts confidential; (V) provision for the Defendant to comment on confidentiality interests; (VI) the Applicant bearing the costs of the inspection; (VII) potential penalty payments for culpable breach; and (VIII) revocation of measures if the Applicant does not bring main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days (whichever is longer) after disclosure of the expert's description.

The Defendant was given the right to request a review of the order within 30 days after execution of the measures (Art. 60(6) UPCA, R. 197.3 RoP) and the right to appeal within 15 days of service (Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA, R. 220.1(c) RoP). The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas (acting as judge-rapporteur), legally qualified judge Dr Thom, and legally qualified judge Gillet.