Ecovacs Robotics Co. Ltd v Roborock (HK) Limited, Order of the Court of Appeal, 16 March 2026, UPC_CoA_3/2026
In a decision of practical significance for UPC practitioners, the Court of Appeal has clarified the conditions under which ex parte measures for the preservation of evidence may be granted and, crucially, revoked. The ruling provides detailed guidance on the applicant’s duty of disclosure, the role of proportionality, and the limits of post hoc justification.
Background
On 2 September 2025, Ecovacs applied to the Düsseldorf Local Division (“LD”) of the UPC for an ex parte order for the inspection and preservation of evidence in relation to several Roborock robot vacuum cleaners exhibited at the IFA 2025 trade fair in Berlin.
Ecovacs argued inter alia that the inspection was necessary to clarify Roborock’s role in the manufacture and supply of the contested products. It submitted that the Roborock group operated from Hong Kong and relied on affiliated entities for logistics and distribution in Europe. Against that background, Ecovacs contended that the trade fair represented a unique opportunity to secure evidence relating to alleged patent infringement.
The Düsseldorf LD considered that Ecovacs had plausibly demonstrated that Roborock was most likely the manufacturer from whom its German subsidiary obtained the products at issue, or that Roborock itself would offer those products at the trade fair. On that basis, the Court considered that the IFA 2025 provided a legitimate opportunity to secure evidence that might otherwise be unavailable and granted the inspection and preservation of evidence order without hearing Roborock.
The order of the Düsseldorf Local Division
Following the inspection, Roborock requested a review of the ex parte order. In its decision of 19 December 2025, the Düsseldorf LD revoked the inspection and preservation of evidence order in its entirety, while maintaining the confidentiality and non disclosure measures already imposed.
The LD held that Ecovacs had breached its duty of full and accurate disclosure required for ex parte measures under Rule 192.3 of the UPC Rules of Procedure (“RoP”). In particular, the LD emphasised that Ecovacs had failed to disclose in its application that Roborock itself was already offering and distributing the contested products directly to German customers via online platforms such as Amazon. The Court noted that this information was disclosed only in the subsequent action on the merits, filed shortly after the application for inspection, from which it emerged that a representative of Ecovacs had purchased one of the products in Germany via Amazon. According to the Court, this information should have been disclosed when seeking ex parte relief, as the LD had understood, on the basis of the application, that the trade fair represented the sole opportunity to establish an act of use directly attributable to Roborock.
The LD further noted that Ecovacs already had access to the relevant technical information and could have obtained evidence of the alleged infringement through a test purchase. Arguments raised only at the review stage, suggesting that the inspection was intended to identify new product designs, were rejected as unsupported and amounting to a fishing expedition. The Court concluded that the breach concerned the core factual basis of the application and therefore did not allow for partial maintenance of the inspection order.
Ecovacs’ claims against the order
Ecovacs appealed the decision, disputing the LD’s factual assessment and legal conclusions. It argued that the inspection was intended to secure evidence relating to the robot vacuum cleaners actually exhibited at IFA 2025, in particular software controlled features relevant to the alleged infringement, as well as associated technical and commercial documentation, rather than to compare the exhibits with products marketed by European affiliates.
According to Ecovacs, a test purchase could not provide access to programme code or internal documentation, nor guarantee that commercially available devices shared the same software configuration as trade fair exhibits. It further submitted that, as Roborock had no establishment in the UPC Contracting Member States, the trade fair constituted the only realistic opportunity to secure such evidence.
From a legal standpoint, Ecovacs maintained that its disclosure obligations were limited to facts decisive under Rule 197.1 RoP, relied on Article 7 of Directive 2004/48 (the IP Enforcement Directive) to justify the scope of the requested measures, and, in the alternative, sought a referral to the CJEU on the notion of “relevant evidence”.
The Court of Appeal’s decision
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in its entirety and provided a comprehensive clarification of the legal framework governing ex parte measures for the preservation of evidence under the UPCA and the RoP.
The Court of Appeal recalled that, pursuant to Article 60 UPCA, the Court may order provisional measures to preserve evidence, including on an ex parte basis, where the applicant has presented reasonably available evidence of actual or imminent infringement and where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence may be destroyed. These provisions must be read in conjunction with Rules 192 and 197 RoP and Article 7 of Directive 2004/48, which require such measures to be prompt and effective, while remaining subject to appropriate safeguards, particularly where the defendant is not heard.
The Court emphasised that applications for ex parte measures are subject to a heightened duty of disclosure under Rule 192.3 RoP. The applicant must disclose any material fact that might influence the decision whether to grant the measure without hearing the defendant, including facts relevant to proportionality. In assessing whether ex parte evidence preservation measures are justified, the Court applies a proportionality test encompassing purpose, suitability and necessity, as well as a balancing of the parties’ interests and fundamental rights. Less intrusive alternatives must be preferred where available, and speculative requests or fishing expeditions should be refused.
Applying that framework, the Court of Appeal held that the inspection order could not have been maintained on review, even in amended form, and confirmed that the LD was right to revoke it.
The Court noted that Ecovacs’ application presented the factual background in a manner suggesting that Roborock did not itself sell products in Europe and that the trade fair therefore constituted the sole opportunity to establish an act of infringement attributable directly to Roborock. In particular, Ecovacs stated that sales in Germany were carried out through Roborock Germany GmbH or other European group companies and asserted that Roborock operated from Hong Kong without a European establishment.
This presentation was found to be incompatible with Ecovacs’ submissions in the parallel proceedings on the merits, filed shortly after the application, in which Ecovacs stated that Roborock itself sold the contested products directly to German customers via its Amazon webshop, supported by documentary evidence. The Court further observed that the application omitted to disclose that the documents and expert opinion submitted with it already pointed to another group company, Beijing Roborock Technology Co., Ltd, as the manufacturer of the products.
These inconsistencies and omissions were held to concern material facts of central importance to the assessment of whether an ex parte measure should be granted. The Court rejected the argument that such shortcomings could be remedied by later submissions made in the review proceedings, emphasising that facts introduced after the application must be disregarded and that the Court is under no obligation to consult other case files. Arguments relating to the need to access source code were also rejected, as they had been raised only after the application.
Rejection of the proposed referral to the CJEU
The Court of Appeal also rejected Ecovacs’ request for a referral to the CJEU. It held that the request was insufficiently substantiated, as no specific question of EU law had been identified.
The Court considered that the issue under review did not concern the scope of “relevant evidence” under Article 7 of Directive 2004/48, but rather the applicant’s duty of full and accurate disclosure when seeking ex parte measures under Rule 192.3 RoP.
To the extent that Ecovacs sought an interpretation of the UPCA or the RoP, the Court recalled that the UPC cannot request a preliminary ruling on those instruments, which are to be treated as national procedural law for this purpose. The Court further held that the disclosure obligation did not infringe the principles of equivalence or effectiveness and did not undermine effective judicial protection.
Practical implications
This decision sends a clear signal that ex parte evidence preservation measures before the UPC will be subject to strict scrutiny, particularly as regards the applicant’s duty of full and accurate disclosure. For rights holders, it underlines the need to anticipate and disclose any known facts relevant to proportionality or the availability of less intrusive alternatives, even where those facts weaken the case for urgency. The Court of Appeal’s approach also limits the tactical use of trade fair inspections where infringement can plausibly be evidenced through market purchases or online sales channels. For defendants, the ruling confirms the effectiveness of post execution review as a safeguard against disproportionate measures.
The order can be found here.
