Short Summary
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1 concerning a method and device for surface treatment of workpieces, filed an application on May 4, 2026, seeking an order for inspection and evidence preservation at the trade fair stand of ANCA Europe GmbH in Stuttgart, in advance of a planned main infringement action. The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order on May 6, 2026, under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent had previously been the subject of two other inspection proceedings and a pending counterclaim for revocation in a separate main action.
Detailed Summary
The applicant, OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH, is the sole proprietor of European Patent EP 2 983 864 B1, titled "Method and device for surface treatment of workpieces." The patent was filed on March 26, 2014, claiming priority from two German patent applications dated April 9, 2013, and September 27, 2013, and was granted on April 26, 2017. It is currently in force in Austria, Belgium, Switzerland, Liechtenstein, the Czech Republic, Germany, Spain, France, Great Britain, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Poland, and Turkey. No opposition was filed against the patent. The respondent, ANCA Europe GmbH, was served at its trade fair stand at Messe Stuttgart (Hall 7, Stand A70). The applicant was represented by attorneys from HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER and European patent attorney Steffen Lenz.
On May 4, 2026, the applicant filed an application for an order of inspection and evidence preservation at the respondent's trade fair stand, in anticipation of a forthcoming main infringement action. The application was brought under Article 60 of the relevant agreement and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 of the Rules of Procedure. The patent's independent claim 1 covers a method for surface processing of workpieces in which the workpiece is moved relative to a bed of grinding and/or polishing granulate, rotated about at least one axis, and accelerated to different rotational speeds, with the workpiece and/or the container holding the granulate being rotated under continuous acceleration at continuously varying rotational speeds. The patent had previously been the subject of two other inspection and evidence preservation proceedings (UPC_CFI_260/2025 and UPC_CFI_885/2025), and a counterclaim for revocation of the patent had been filed in another main action (UPC_CFI_511/2025) by a different party, which remained pending.
& Analysis: The order was issued by the reporting judge, Presiding Judge Thomas, together with legally qualified Judge Dr. Schumacher and legally qualified Judge Dr. Schober, sitting as Panel 1 of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The proceedings were conducted in German. The court granted the application for inspection and evidence preservation based on the statutory provisions cited.
Final Order & Ruling: The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued the order for inspection and evidence preservation on May 6, 2026, in case UPC_CFI_1536/2026, authorizing the requested measures at the respondent's trade fair stand in Stuttgart.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH vs ANCA Europe GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Adeia Guides Inc.vsThe Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V. ao
This is a procedural order in a patent infringement action brought by Adeia Guides Inc. against three Walt Disney entities concerning European Patent No. 2 793 430. The court scheduled the proceedings, setting dates for the written procedure, interim conference, and oral hearing, and confirmed that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation would proceed together with the parties' consent.
Roborock Germany GmbHvsRespondent
This procedural order concerns a request by the defendants for an extension of time limits in a patent infringement action involving European Patent No. 3 030 943. The defendants sought to extend the deadline for filing their opposition under Rule 19 of the Rules of Procedure to August 26, 2025, and the deadlines for the statement of defense under Rule 23 and the counterclaim for revocation under Rule 25 to October 27, 2025. The plaintiff consented to the extensions, and the presiding judge granted the request.
bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., gesetzlich vertreten durch dvsRespondent
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued an order concerning the suspension of cost determination proceedings related to European Patent EP 3685783. The applicant, bioletic Holding GmbH & Co.KG., had previously had its ex-parte application for provisional measures rejected and was ordered to bear costs, with its appeal also dismissed. The respondents sought reimbursement of their appeal costs, but the court suspended the cost determination proceedings until the final resolution of the main infringement action and counterclaim for revocation pending before the Local Chamber Munich.
biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KGvsLight Guide Optics Germany GmbH a.o.
The plaintiff, biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG, holder of European Patent EP 3 685 783 B1 concerning an endoluminal laser ablation device for treating venous insufficiencies, sued Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International for infringement relating to their 'Lightguide Infinity Side Fiber' product. The defendants had filed an opposition before the European Patent Office seeking full revocation of the patent-in-suit. The Local Chamber Munich addressed whether to stay proceedings under Rule 295 of the Rules of Procedure, given that the EPO Opposition Division had revoked the patent between the oral hearing and the scheduled pronouncement date.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.vsAmazon.com, Inc.
The plaintiffs, four InterDigital entities, withdrew their lawsuit against five Amazon entities with the defendants' consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the refund of 50% of the court fees (€7,500) to the plaintiffs. No cost applications were made or pending.
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.