UPC CFI 1589/2025 – Komax Holding AG v. Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.

Expert Commentary

Full Decision Text

1 Düsseldorf local division UPC CFI 1589/2025 Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 17 November 2025 concerning EP 3 024 099 B1 APPLICANT: Komax Holding AG, Industriestrasse 6, 6036 Dierikon, Switzerland represented by Dr Felix Klopmeier, lawyer, Lang & Rahmann Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Kaistraße 20, 40221 Düsseldorf, Germany Contributors: Patent Attorney Dr Dominique Gobert, Patent Attorney Dr Philipp Heidler, Josephhospitalstraße 15, 80331 Munich, Germany Electronic delivery address: felix.klopmeier@lang-rahmann.de OPPOSING PARTY: Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd., No. 50 Aoyuan Rd., Xinbei District, 213125 Changzhou, China Trade fair address: PRODUCTRONICA Munich, Stand Hall B4.123, Munich Trade Fair, Exhibition Grounds, 81823 Munich, Germany PATENT APPLICATION: EUROPEAN PATENT NO. EP 3 024 099 B1 PANEL/CHAMBER: Düsseldorf local division Panel of Judges: This order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as judge-rapporteur, legally qualified judge Dr Schumacher and legally qualified judge Dr Schober.2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 2 qualified judge Dr Schumacher and legally qualified judge Dr Schober. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: German SUBJECT: Art. 60 UPC Agreement, R. 194 (d), 196, 197, 199 RoP – Application for inspection and preservation of evidence SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: 1. On 14 November 2025, the applicant filed an application for an order for inspection and preservation of evidence at the respondent's exhibition stand in advance of a main action. 2. The applicant is the sole owner of European patent 3 024 099 (B1 document submitted as Annex LR 1; hereinafter referred to as the patent in suit), which was registered in the register (Annex LR 2) and filed in German as the language of the proceedings on 18 November 2014. The grant of the patent application was published on 10 June 2020. 3. The patent application, which has not yet undergone any legal validity proceedings and is in force in Germany, Italy, Romania and Serbia, among other countries, is entitled "Cable processing device". Its patent claims 1, 7 and 9 are worded as follows: Patent claim 1: "Cable processing device (1) for assembling cables, with processing stations (2, 3, 4) for processing cable ends and a central control unit (6) via which, at least with regard to production operation, the processing stations (2, 3, 4) 4) can be controlled and monitored, characterised in that at least one of the processing stations (2, 3, 4) has a local control unit (10) for local setup of the respective processing station (2, 3, 4), which makes it possible to carry out individual processing operations on a trial basis." Patent claim 7: "Cable processing device (1) according to one of claims 1 to 6, characterised in that a local control unit (10) of at least one of the processing stations (2, 3, 4) comprises input means (12) for controlling a feed unit (8) for feeding a cable end of the cable to the respective processing station (4). Patent claim 9: "Cable processing device (1) according to claim 7 or 8, characterised in that the cable processing device (1) contains a crimping station (4) as a processing station for producing a crimp connection with a crimping press (7) and that the crimping station (4) comprises a local control unit (10) with input means (14) for adjusting the axial and/or horizontal position of a gripper (9) of a feed unit (8) holding a cable end of the cable in the crimping press of the crimping station (4)." 4. The respondent is a manufacturer of intelligent automatic cable harness processing systems, which are marketed under the "Bozwang" brand and2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 3 over 70 countries. The respondent's products include the machine "BZW-3005". 5. The respondent distributes its products in the European Union (EU), among other places. The machine "BZW-3005" is advertised on the "Made-in-China" portal (https://de.made-in- china.com) as follows: 6. The company profile on the aforementioned website also contains a reference to the existence of "CE and other certifications". 7. In addition, a person responsible for the EU is named, and the respondent is also looking for a general representative for Germany. Finally, the following product description can be found on the aforementioned website:2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 4 8. Furthermore, the respondent also operates a German-language domain (www.wire-pro- cessor.de), which is apparently managed from Czechia and offers the following contact options: 9. The respondent will operate a stand at the "Productronica Munich" trade fair taking place in Munich from 18 to 21 November 2025. As can be seen from the image below, taken from the application dated 14 November 2025, a machine of the type "BZW-3005" can be found at the respondent's exhibition stand:2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 5 10. The applicant argues that, based on the information available to it to date, the "BZW-3005" makes use of the technical teaching of claims 1, 7 and 9 of the patent in suit. The applicant substantiates this suspicion by referring to the respondent's website (Exhibit LR 4), individual images from a YouTube video (Exhibit LR 5) and a product brochure (Exhibit LR 6). In addition, in March 2025, the applicant sent a patent attorney together with a notary to the respondent's exhibition stand at "Productronica" in Shanghai to find out how the "BZW-3005" works. According to the applicant's submission, a comprehensive examination was not possible there because unrestricted access to the machine could not be obtained. With regard to the findings obtained during this visit to the trade fair, reference is made to Annex LR 7. A test purchase of the machine, which is not freely accessible even at trade fairs, is out of the question both because of the high price of the machine and because of its dimensions. In addition, delivery to the respondent's direct competitors is effectively impossible. A visit to customers is also out of the question due to the usual security measures in manufacturing plants. 11. Against this background, the applicant now seeks an order for inspection and evidence preservation measures at the upcoming "Produtronica" trade fair in Munich. THE APPLICANT'S APPLICATIONS: 12. The applicant requests I. that the applicant be granted permission to inspect a functional "BZW-3005" in working order at the respondent's exhibition stand at the Productronica trade fair in Munich 2025, which will take place in Munich from 18 to 21 November 2025 inclusive at the exhibition centre, Munich, by a bailiff, an expert and a legal representative and a patent attorney representing the applicant, and in doing so: - putting the "BZW-3005" into operation, whereby the respondent is instructed to enter any necessary passwords, - make settings on local control units of the "BZW-3005", in particular using the local control units to set up the respective processing stations, - control feed units for feeding cables on local control units of the "BZW-3005" and, in particular, request a cable, - determine whether a crimping station is available, - to make settings for the crimping station on local control units of the "BZW-3005" in order to adjust the axial and/or horizontal position of a gripper of a feed unit holding one end of the cable in the crimping press of the crimping station, - to put the "BZW-3005" into a test mode or debugging mode, whereby the respondent is instructed to enter any necessary passwords,2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 6 - to carry out processing steps in the test mode or debugging mode of the "BZW-3005", - to document the investigation with photographs and video recordings; II. to allow the applicant to physically seize one copy of all technical, advertising and commercial documents relating to the "BZW-3005" during Productronica Munich, which takes place from 18 November 2025 to 21 November 2025 inclusive at the exhibition centre in Munich, Munich, and then have them inspected by an expert as described in Section I; III. Appoint patent attorney Dr Egbert Engel, DTS Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, located at Am Fruchtkasten 3, 70173 Stuttgart, as the expert and determine that he may be replaced by a European patent attorney working in the same law firm as Dr Egbert Engel; IV. appoint the locally competent bailiff, to be commissioned by the applicant, to assist the expert as an auxiliary person; V. to instruct the expert and the bailiff to maintain confidentiality both towards the applicant personally and towards third parties in the interests of protecting the respondent's trade secrets that may come to light during the inspection and preservation of evidence; VI. to permit the presence of the following representatives of the applicant during the execution of the present order: 1. Lawyer Dr Felix Klopmeier, Lang & Rahmann Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Kaistraße 20, 40221 Düsseldorf, or another lawyer from Lang & Rahmann Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, if Dr Klopmeier is unavailable; 2. Patent attorney Dr Dominique Gobert, Zimmermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB, Josephspitalstraße 15, 80331 Munich, or another patent attorney from Zimmermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB if Dr Gobert is unavailable; VII. to order the respondent to cooperate in the implementation of the measures for inspection and preservation of evidence in accordance with this order and to allow the bailiff and the expert, at their request 1. to allow them and the persons authorised to be present in accordance with Section VI to enter the respondent's exhibition stand at the Productronia trade fair in Munich in 2025, which will take place from 18 November 2025 to 21 November 2025 inclusive at the exhibition centre in Munich, in order to carry out the inspection and preservation of evidence in accordance with this order; 2. to grant unrestricted access to the "BZW-3005", including the individual processing stations and local control units and including the entry of passwords; 3. to put the "BZW-3005" into operation and into various operating states, including test mode or debug mode and instruct its managing directors, employees and vicarious agents to comply with the requests2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 7 of the bailiff or the expert; VIII. to oblige the persons involved in carrying out the inspection and securing evidence, in particular the bailiff, the expert and the applicant's representatives, to keep confidential any facts that come to their knowledge in the course of executing the entire order, both vis-à-vis third parties and vis-à-vis the applicantand until the Unified Patent Court issues a release order, not to give the applicant or third parties any opportunity to inspect the "BZW-3005", any seized documents and products, or the detailed description to be prepared by the expert; IX. to impose a penalty payment for each culpable violation of this order, the amount of which may be determined by the court taking into account the circumstances of the individual case; X. to have this order served in person by the bailiff at the trade fair, together with a copy of the application for the order, including the evidence and other documents on which the application is based; XI. to order that the requested order be immediately enforceable. REASONS FOR THE ORDER: 13. The application for an order for inspection and preservation of evidence (R. 192, 199 RoP) is successful to the extent stated in the operative part. I. 14. The Düsseldorf local division has jurisdiction pursuant to Art. 32 (1) c), 33 (1) b), 60 UPC Agreement. The application has been filed in an admissible manner in accordance with R. 192 RoP. In particular, the applicant has stated that it intends to bring an action on the merits against the respondent before the Local Chamber in Düsseldorf. II. 15. Furthermore, the applicant has credibly demonstrated that the application patent may be infringed by the application opponent (Article 60(1) UPC Agreement). 16. In view of the circumstances of the case described above, it is possible that the product "BZW-3005", as it is expected to be exhibited at the "Productronica" trade fair in Munich, makes use of the technical teaching of the patent application. 17. The applicant, who is entitled to bring the action as the owner of the patent in suit, has explained in a comprehensible manner why it considers it possible to implement all the features of claims 1, 7 and 9 of the patent in suit in the "BZW-3005" machine. In doing so, it has appealed in particular to the findings obtained at the "Productronica" trade fair in Shanghai, as well as to excerpts from a product brochure and a YouTube video, and has used these sources of information to explain why it assumes that the features are realised. However, the realisation of all the features of the aforementioned claims of the patent application cannot be sufficiently proven in the event of a dispute on the basis of the sources of information available to the applicant to date. In particular, the control processes and operating modes referred to in the patent claims are not readily apparent from an external view of the machine alone. In addition, the2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 8 Exhibition of the machine in Shanghai outside the scope of the patent application and thus in a patent-free foreign country. The applicant therefore has an interest in clarifying and, if necessary, securing evidence of the configuration in which the "BZW-3005" is presented in Munich and thus within the scope of the patent application. 18. An examination of the legal validity of the patent application is not to be carried out within the framework of the present proceedings. Something else can only apply if there are clear indications that the legal validity of the patent application is in doubt, for example as a result of a negative decision on legal validity (cf. UPC CoA 327/2025, order of 15 July 2025, para. 42 et seq. – Maguin v. Tiru). However, there are no such indications. III. 19. The applicant has also demonstrated that the application is urgent (R. 194.2 a) RoP). In addition, it has provided reasons for the issuance of an ex parte order (R. 194.2 b), c), 197 RoP). 1. 20. The inspection or preservation of evidence is urgent. 21. The applicant has clearly demonstrated that the "BZW-3005" machine, which is expected to be exhibited at "Productronica" in Munich, may make use of the technical teaching of claim 1 and subclaims 7 and 9 of the patent application. However, further substantiation can only be provided by examining the machine exhibited at the aforementioned trade fair, inspecting the machine, including the areas behind the protective covers and the software used, and securing the relevant evidence. According to the applicant's submission, it is not possible for it to obtain access to a "BZW-3005" machine by other means. A test purchase is out of the question both because of the high price of such a machine and in view of its dimensions. In addition, the applicant has plausibly demonstrated that the respondent would not sell such a machine to the applicant as a direct competitor. It is not apparent that the applicant would be able to inspect the machine at one of the customers' premises, contrary to its submission. The applicant was also unable to view the machine in detail at "Productronica" in Shanghai. The findings obtained there are based primarily on an inspection of the machine in its closed state and on information obtained from discussions with employees of the respondent. The upcoming exhibition of the "BZW-3005" at "Produtronica" in Munich therefore offers the applicant an opportunity to gather evidence for the alleged infringement of the patent in question. 22. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant had previously had the opportunity to sufficiently inspect the machine "BZW-3005" within the scope of the patent application or to preserve evidence in any other way. 2. 23. The order was to be issued ex parte in accordance with Rules 192.3 and 197 of the RoP. Otherwise, there would be a demonstrable risk that evidence would be destroyed or would no longer be available for other reasons (Rule 197.1 Alt. 2 of the RoP).2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 9 24. As the applicant has clearly explained, in the event of a prior hearing, it would be easy for the respondent to either refrain from issuing the "BZW-3005" or to change the programming of the machine in such a way that the local operating units would become largely inoperative. In addition, it would also be possible to change the debug mode so that it no longer makes use of the features of claim 1 of the application patent. In addition, "Productronica Munich", which takes place only every two years, is the leading trade fair in Europe, which is why further exhibition of the machine in a contracting state is not to be expected in the medium term. The applicant has plausibly demonstrated that machines such as the "BZW-3005" are only exhibited once in Shanghai and once in Munich. Without an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order, it would therefore be almost impossible for the applicant to obtain evidence of what it considers to be an infringement of the patent in suit by the aforementioned product due to the special market conditions already described. IV. 25. In the context of the discretionary decision, the interests of the applicant prevail. 26. Based on the information available to it to date, the applicant has plausibly explained why it assumes that all features of patent claim 1 and subclaims 7 and 9 of the patent application are realised in the "BZW-3005" exhibited at "Productronica" in Munich. It has also plausibly explained why, given the particular circumstances in the relevant market, it has no other options for gathering evidence of what it considers to be an infringement of the patent application by the "BZW-3005" product, and why it is therefore dependent on an examination of the machine exhibited at "Productronica Munich" in order to preserve evidence. 27. Against this background, the present order is necessary in order to satisfy the applicant's overriding interests in this respect. The measures ordered do not place an unreasonable burden on the respondent. The confidentiality orders included in the order take sufficient account of the respondent's interests in confidentiality. 28. As far as the disclosure of documents mentioned by the applicant is concerned (see application under II.), this can only be considered if it is impossible to inspect and secure evidence at the trade fair. V. 29. The order stipulates, in accordance with Rules 196.4 and 196.5 of the RoP, that an expert be appointed to carry out the measures. There are no objections to the appointment of the expert. The applicant has stated that there are no business or personal relationships between the applicant and the expert. Insofar as the applicant points out that the patent attorneys involved have a professional relationship with the expert, this does not in itself give rise to doubts as to the expert's independence and impartiality. There are therefore no objections to his appointment in the evidence preservation proceedings. Any difficulties that may arise from this in the subsequent usability of the detailed description are also at the expense of the2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 10 the applicant appointing the expert witness, as well as any resulting reduction in the probative value of the findings obtained in the evidence preservation proceedings. 30. In order to assist the expert in preserving evidence, the Chamber made use of the option granted by Rule 196.5(2) of the RoP to issue an order for the assistance of a bailiff. The bailiff's involvement was necessary in particular for the requested seizure in rem, which under national law falls within the jurisdiction of bailiffs (UPC CFI 539/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), order of 18 October 2024 – Bekaert Binjiang Steel v. Siltronic). 31. According to Rule 196.5 of the RoP, members or representatives of the applicant itself were to be excluded from the inspection and preservation of evidence. In view of proportionality and the protection of confidential information, the number of representatives present at the inspection was also to be limited, as requested (Art. 60 (1) UPC Agreement, R. 196.1 RoP). The confidentiality measures also imposed on the representatives, the expert and the bailiff take into account the respondent's interests in confidentiality. The same applies to the procedure described after receipt of the detailed description. 32. Furthermore, it was necessary to order that the detailed description to be prepared by the expert may only be used in main proceedings against the respondent (R. 196.2 RoP). 33. The costs of the inspection and preservation of evidence to be carried out by the expert, including the detailed description to be prepared by the expert, shall in any case be paid by the applicant until further notice, as she has requested the inspection. If, contrary to the information provided in the application, the expert does not waive the payment of an advance for his costs, the applicant shall pay the expert a reasonable advance to be determined by the expert before the inspection begins. 34. This order, together with the documents referred to in section XIII, shall be served by the bailiff in cooperation with one of the applicant's representatives present at the inspection and preservation of evidence in accordance with section V, pursuant to R. 197.2 RoP. VII. 35. The general threat of coercive measures included in the order gives the Chamber the necessary flexibility to respond to any violations of this order, taking into account the interests of both parties and the severity of the violation. 36. In this specific case, it was possible to refrain from the order of a security. The special circumstances required for an ex parte order (R. 196.6 RoP) are present. Unlike in the case of an injunction, the respondent faces only minor damage at most as a result of the inspection and preservation of evidence. It also remains entitled to offer and distribute the machine under investigation (UPC CFI 260/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), order of 26 March 2025, p. 9 f. – OTEC Präzisionsfinish v. STEROS; UPC CFI 1325/2025 (LD Düsseldorf), order of 30 October 2025, para. 38 – Van Loon2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 11 Beheer v. Inverquark; distinction from: UPC CFI 177/2023 (LD Düsseldorf), order of 22 June 2023 – myStromer v. Revolt). On this basis, and taking into account the short duration of the trade fair, ordering the provision of security would unreasonably delay the preservation of evidence and inspection, which justifies refraining from ordering the provision of security in the present case.2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 12 ORDER: The following inspection and preservation of evidence order is issued without prior hearing of the respondent: I. The applicant is granted: with regard to an infringement of claim 1 of EP 3 024 099 B1, which reads "Cable processing device (1) for assembling cables, comprising processing stations (2, 3, 4) for processing cable ends and a central control unit (6) via which, at least with regard to production operation, the processing stations (2, 3, 4) 4) can be controlled and monitored, characterised in that at least one of the processing stations (2, 3, 4) has a local control unit (10) for local setup of the respective processing station (2, 3, 4), which makes it possible to carry out individual processing operations on a trial basis." and with regard to an infringement of claim 7 of EP 3 024 099 B1, which reads "Cable processing device (1) according to one of claims 1 to 6, characterised in that a local control unit (10) of at least one of the processing stations (2, 3, 4) comprises input means (12) for controlling a feed unit (8) for feeding a cable end of the cable to the respective processing station (4)." and with regard to an infringement of claim 9 of EP 3 024 099 B1, which reads "Cable processing device (1) according to claim 7 or 8, characterised in that the cable processing device (1) contains a crimping station (4) as a processing station for producing a crimp connection with a crimping press (7) and that the crimping station (4) comprises a local control unit (10) with input means (14) for setting the axial and/or horizontal position of a gripper (9) of a feed unit (8) holding a cable end of the cable in the crimping press of the crimping station (4)." 1. the inspection of the machine "BZW-3005" exhibited at the "Productronica Munich" trade fair, which will take place from 18 to 21 November 2025 at the Munich Exhibition Centre, 81823 Munich, Germany, by an expert and a bailiff for the purpose of determining whether the machine "BZW-3005" exhibited by the respondent infringes claims 1, 7 and 9 of EP 3 024 099 B1 because it makes use of the technical teaching of this patent;2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 13 2. Securing evidence at the "Productronica Munich" trade fair (stand Hall B4.123) by an expert and a bailiff by a) the preparation of a detailed description of the "BZW-3005" machine, whereby the detailed description shall also include a determination as to whether a crimping station is present, whereby the expert – with the assistance of the bailiff, if necessary – shall carry out the necessary investigations and, if necessary for the preservation of evidence, open the machine, put it into operation, make the necessary adjustments and the machine also in a test or debugging mode; b) alternatively, in the event that inspection pursuant to Section I.2.a) is impossible: the physical seizure of all technical, advertising and commercial documents, one copy of each, as well as the subsequent inspection and preservation of evidence as described above under 1. and 2.a). II. Within two weeks of completing the measures, the expert shall submit a detailed description of the results of the inspection and evidence preservation measures, including an opinion on whether the machine "BZW-3005" infringes claims 1, 7 and 9 of EP 3 024 099 B1 because it makes use of the technical teaching of this patent. In doing so, the expert shall limit himself to the questions raised by the applicant in the application. Any interpretation of EP 3 024 099 B1 beyond this is just as unwarranted as a comprehensive infringement assessment that goes beyond the questions raised by the applicant in the application. III. The detailed description prepared in accordance with Section II and all other results of the inspection and preservation of evidence may only be used in main proceedings against the respondent. IV. The following person is appointed as the expert to carry out this order: Patent Attorney Dr Egbert Engel, DTS Patent- und Rechtsanwälte PartmbB, Stuttgart office, Am Fruchtkasten 3, 70173 Stuttgart. This person may be replaced by a European patent attorney working in the same law firm. The locally competent bailiff is appointed as an assistant to support the expert.2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 14 V. During the execution of this order, in addition to the expert and the bailiff, the following representatives of the applicant are permitted to be present for the inspection of the machine "BZW-3005" (section I.1.) and the preservation of evidence (section I.2.): 1. Lawyer Dr Felix Klopmeier, Lang & Rahmann Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB, Kaistraße 20, 40221 Düsseldorf, or another lawyer from Lang & Rahmann Rechtsanwälte PartG mbB if Dr Klopmeier is unavailable; 2. Patent attorney Dr Dominique Gobert, Zimmermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB, Josephspitalstraße 15, 80331 Munich, or another patent attorney from Zimmermann & Partner Patentanwälte mbB if Dr Gobert is unavailable. Representatives, employees or other staff of the applicant may not be present during the execution of this order with regard to the inspection and preservation of evidence. VI. The persons involved in carrying out the inspection and securing evidence, in particular the bailiff, the expert and the applicant's representatives (solicitor Dr Klopmeier, patent attorney Dr Gobert or their respective representatives in accordance with Sections V.1. and V.2.) are obliged to keep confidential any facts that come to their knowledge in the course of executing the entire order, both vis-à-vis third parties and vis-à-vis the applicant and its employees. In addition, until the Unified Patent Court issues a release order, the aforementioned persons may not give the applicant or third parties any opportunity to inspect the "BZW-3005" machine, any seized documents and products, or the detailed description to be prepared by the expert. VII. The respondent is ordered 1. to cooperate in the implementation of the measures for inspection and preservation of evidence in accordance with this order and to grant the expert and the bailiff, at their request, a. to grant the expert and the bailiff unrestricted access to the "BZW-3005" machine upon request; b. to put the "BZW-3005" into operation, whereby the respondent is ordered to enter any necessary passwords; c. to make settings on local control units of the "BZW-3005", in particular to use the local control units to set up the respective processing stations; d. to control feed units for feeding cables on local control units of the "BZW- 3005" and, in particular, to request a cable;2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 15 e. making settings on the crimping station on local control units of the "BZW-3005" in order to adjust the axial and/or horizontal position of a gripper holding one end of the cable in the feed unit in the crimping press of the crimping station; f. to put the "BZW-3005" into test mode or debugging mode, whereby the respondent is instructed to enter any necessary passwords; g. to carry out processing steps in the test mode or debugging mode of the "BZW-3005"; h. to document the investigation with image and video recordings; 2. if inspection is not possible (see section II.2): to hand over to the expert all documents mentioned in section II.2b) for the purpose of making a copy; 3. instruct its managing directors and employees to comply with the requests of the bailiff and/or the expert. VIII. The respondent shall be requested to comment on any confidentiality interests it may have after the expert appointed to carry out this order has submitted the detailed description to be prepared in accordance with Section II. The above- mentioned representatives of the applicant, who were allowed to be present during the inspection and preservation of evidence, shall be heard. Only then shall the court decide whether and to what extent the detailed description shall be brought to the personal attention of the applicant and whether the duty of confidentiality shall be lifted for the representatives of the applicant. IX. The applicant is obliged to bear the costs of the inspection and preservation of evidence, including the detailed description. The applicant is required to pay the expert a reasonable advance on costs, to be determined by the expert, before the inspection begins, unless the expert waives such an advance. X. In the event of a culpable violation of this order, the court may impose a penalty payment on each party for each violation, the amount of which may be determined by the court taking into account the circumstances of the individual case. XI. In the event of a main action being brought, the expert shall be instructed to bring any samples to court after completing the detailed description. XII. The measures for inspection and preservation of evidence shall be revoked upon application of the respondent or shall otherwise cease to have effect if the applicant does not, within a period of no more than 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is longer, after the detailed description of the applicant to be prepared in accordance with Section II has been disclosed or the court has decided by final decision not to grant access to this description, has brought an action against the respondent.2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com 16 XIII. This order shall be served by the bailiff in cooperation with one of the representatives of the applicant named in section V, together with a copy of the application for this order, including the evidence and other documents on which the application is based, as well as the notification of provisional measures and instructions for access to the proceedings, immediately upon execution of the measures.submitted in support of the application prior to or during the execution of this order, as well as the notification of provisional measures and instructions for access to the proceedings, immediately at the time of execution of the measures. XIV. In all other respects, the application for inspection and preservation of evidence is rejected. INFORMATION ON REVIEW AND APPEAL: The respondent may request a review of this order within 30 days of the measures being enforced (Art. 60(6) UPC Agreement, R. 197.3 RoP). The party adversely affected may appeal against this order within 15 days of its notification (Art. 73 (2) a) UPC Agreement, R. 220.1 c) RoP). Issued on 17 November 2025 NAMES AND SIGNATURES Presiding Judge Thomas Ronny Digital signed by Ronny Thomas Thomas Date: 17 November 2025 08:07:38 +01'00' Legally qualified judge Dr Schumacher Digitally signed JuleKathrin by Jule Kathrin Schumacher Schumacher Date: 17 November 2025 08:55:07 Legally qualified judge Dr Schober Walter Digitally signed by Walter Schober Schober 08:22:51 +01'00' Date: 17 November 2025 for the Deputy-Registrar Rachida Digitally signed by Rachida Boudra- Boudra- Seddiki Seddiki Date: 17 November 2025 09:20:33 +01'00'2025-11-17 LD Dusseldorf UPC CFI 1589-2025 en-GB.pdfDeepL machine translation provided by www.veron.com

Key Holdings

• The Düsseldorf local division has jurisdiction over the application for inspection and preservation of evidence.
• The applicant credibly demonstrated a plausible case of patent infringement by the respondent's 'BZW-3005' machine, justifying the need for evidence preservation.
• The inspection and preservation of evidence were deemed urgent and necessary, as alternative means of obtaining evidence were not feasible for the applicant.
• The order was issued ex parte to prevent the risk of evidence destruction or alteration by the respondent if a prior hearing were held.
• Strict confidentiality measures were imposed on all parties involved in the inspection (expert, bailiff, applicant's representatives) to protect the respondent's trade secrets, with a release order required from the UPC for disclosure to the applicant.

Tags

• Ex Parte Order
• Infringement
• Inspection
• Preservation of Evidence
• Trade Fair
• UPC
• Unified Patent Court

Related Cases

• UPC CFI 463/2023 – 10x Genomics, Inc. v Curio Bioscience Inc.
• UPC_CFI_1325/2025 – Van Loon v Inverquark
• UPC_CFI_115/2024; UPC_CFI_377/2024 – Hartman v Omni-Pac
• UPC_CFI_181/2025_July23 – Qiagen v bioMérieux
• UPC_CFI_315/2024 – Labrador v bioMérieux