2026-05-04 - LD Düsseldorf - Otec Pr Zisionsfinish v. Steros Gpa Innovative - UPC-CFI-0000885/2025

Aktenzeichen:
UPC-CFI-0000885/2025
Datum:
Spruchkörper:
Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Art:
Decision
Parteien:
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v. STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.

Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf Local Division cancelled its earlier ex parte inspection and evidence-preservation order against STEROS GPA, executed at the EMO Hannover trade fair in September 2025, because the applicant OTEC failed to file main infringement proceedings within the 31-calendar-…

2026-05-04 - LD Düsseldorf - Otec Pr Zisionsfinish v. Steros Gpa Innovative - UPC-CFI-0000885/2025
🏛️Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division• Decision
📅2026-05-04
🔢UPC-CFI-0000885/2025
Parteien & Vertreter
Kläger / Berufungsführer
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
Klaus HAFT
Beklagter / Berufungsbeklagter
STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
Peter KOCH
⚖️Generic Order
🌐German
🤖🇬🇧

notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division cancelled its earlier ex parte inspection and evidence-preservation order against STEROS GPA, executed at the EMO Hannover trade fair in September 2025, because the applicant OTEC failed to file main infringement proceedings within the 31-calendar-day / 20-working-day window of Art. 60(8) UPCA and Rule 198.1 RoP (which Rule 199.2 RoP applies to inspection orders); the deadline ran from the release of the court expert's detailed description on 17 November 2025. As Folgenbeseitigung, the court ordered the return of all evidence, destruction of all copies of the trade-fair brochure and irretrievable deletion of the digital expert description. The respondent's compensation claim of 11,390 EUR under Art. 60(9) UPCA in conjunction with Rule 198.2 RoP was rejected: the asserted attorney and translation costs are not 'damages' (Schaden) within those provisions but procedural costs to be recovered through a separate cost-assessment procedure under Rule 151 ff. RoP — for which the panel issued the necessary cost-basis decision (Kostengrundentscheidung) by analogous application of Rule 118.6 RoP, imposing the costs of the evidence-preservation procedure on the applicant.

Inoffiziell

Entscheidung teilen

Weitere Navigation
Entscheidungen
Rechtstexte
Analysen

Zu Sammlung hinzufügen

0 Einträge hinzufügen zu:

Anmeldung

Registrieren