2026-03-16 - CoA - ECOVACS v. Roborock - UPC-COA-0000003/2026

ENGLISH: Measures to preserve evidence without hearing the other party raise issues of due process. The applicant’s duty to disclose any material fact known to it which might influence the Court in deciding whether to make an order without hearing the defendant is there so that the Court can take due account of the interests of both parties, in spite of having to rely only on the facts presented in the Application. Representatives are generally obliged not to misrepresent facts (R. 284 RoP). R. 192.3 RoP imposes a heightened requirement where the applicant must disclose, and not leave out, any material facts that might be relevant for an ex parte order. This includes (for example) facts that may be relevant for the proportionality assessment. Omissions and distorted accounts of material facts which might be of central importance for the Local Division’s assessment on whether to allow the request at all cannot be compensated or circumvented by later submissions in response to a Request for review.

CoA upholds Dusseldorf LD's revocation of an ex parte inspection order obtained by Ecovacs against Roborock at IFA 2025 trade fair. Establishes comprehensive framework for R. 192.3 RoP disclosure duty: applicants must disclose all material facts that might influence the court's decision on ex parte orders, including facts relevant to proportionality. Ecovacs failed to disclose that Roborock sells directly to German customers via Amazon (not just through its German subsidiary) and that a different group company was the manufacturer. These omissions were fatal — they cannot be cured by later submissions on review. CJEU referral rejected: the UPC cannot ask the CJEU to interpret the UPCA or RoP, which are equivalent to national procedural law.