2026-07-03 - LD Düsseldorf - ECOVACS v. Roborock - UPC-CFI-0000604/2026
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-CFI-0000604/2026
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd., v. Roborock Germany GmbH a. o.
Kernaussage: ENGLISH:
2026-07-03 - LD Düsseldorf - ECOVACS
v.
Roborock - UPC-CFI-0000604/2026
ENGLISH:
1.
In the absence of any specific fact that is contested at the time of submitting the request, it is not in line with the outlined principles relevant for assessing a R. 190 RoP Request to conditionally ask for an overall documentation. R. 190 RoP is not for investigation of unknown facts but to produce evidence for substantiated, relevant and contested facts.
2.
Although neither the Enforcement Directive nor the UPCA nor the RoP set out a timeframe for submitting a R. 190 RoP Request that would make it (in)admissible, and there is also no procedural framework indicating that such request can only be introduced once all parties' arguments have been finalised, it is clear that a R. 190 RoP Request could be dismissed if the Court deems it to be too early in the proceedings, based on the circumstances of the case.
notable
In an infringement action with a counterclaim for revocation before the Düsseldorf Local Division, the Court decided four interlocutory applications by a single order. It refused the Defendant's requests to exclude the Claimant's expert reports, holding that objections to a report's impartiality and independence under R. 181.1 in conjunction with R. 175.2 RoP go to evidential weight, not to admissibility, and will be assessed on the merits. It issued a preliminary confidentiality order under R. 262A/262.2 RoP by the parties' agreement, limiting access to the Claimant's UPC representatives and reserving the final scope. Most significantly, it dismissed the Claimant's R. 190 RoP request for production of source code and technical documentation, applying the five cumulative conditions developed by the Court of Appeal in Oppo v Panasonic and holding that R. 190 serves to prove substantiated, relevant and contested facts rather than to investigate unknown facts, and may be refused where introduced too early in the proceedings. Finally, it granted a limited extension of time for the Reply and Defence to the Counterclaim to 2 September 2026.
Stichwörter
ENGLISH:
APPLICATION TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE (R. 190 ROP), CONFIDENTIALITY REQUEST (R. 262A ROP), EXTENSION OF TIME LIMITS (R. 9.3 ROP)