Trade fair without
CE marking
unfair.
Trade fair without
CE marking
unfair.
from
A Chinese company presents blood processing products at MEDICA 2025 that do not bear the CE mark and does not display a sign indicating the lack of approval. Is the trade fair employee’s verbal reference to the lack of approval sufficient? The Düsseldorf Regional Court says no.
What is it all about?
At MEDICA 2025 in Düsseldorf, the world’s largest medical technology trade fair, a Chinese company exhibited special blood processing products known as PRP tubes. These tubes can be used to obtain platelet-rich plasma, which is used in medicine to heal wounds, among other things. None of the products on display had a CE mark, i.e. the mark that proves that a medical device meets the legal safety requirements in Europe.
A Swiss competitor that manufactures similar products and sells them in Germany saw this as an infringement of competition law and took the company to court. It also claimed that the products on display infringed its own patent. The Düsseldorf Regional Court upheld the allegation under competition law, but dismissed the patent allegation.
What happened at the trade fair?
The Chinese company presented three products at its trade fair stand: “XL HA-PRP”, “L-PRP Tube” and “CGF Tube”. None of the products carried a CE marking. When an employee of the Swiss competitor inquired, a sales representative explained that the products were not yet certified. He referred to a European regulation according to which non-certified products may be shown at trade fairs, but only under certain conditions.
One of these conditions is a clearly visible sign that explicitly informs trade fair visitors that the products are not yet approved and may not yet be sold. However, there was no such sign. After some insistence, the employee handed over three sample tubes. He also pointed out a special feature. The tube that was labeled as containing hyaluronic acid actually contained biotin, a different active ingredient. This was undisputed between the two parties.
What did the court decide?
Exhibiting without a sign is prohibited
The Düsseldorf Regional Court has ruled Judgment of 12.01.2026 – Ref. 4b O 59/25 has issued a temporary injunction prohibiting the Chinese manufacturer from exhibiting PRP tubes at trade fairs as long as no valid CE marking is available and no mandatory information sign is displayed.
Although European law allows non-certified medical devices to be shown at trade fairs, this is only possible on condition that it is clearly communicated in writing that the products are not yet approved and may not be sold. This information must be displayed on a sign that is clearly visible to all visitors. Verbal information from an employee is not sufficient.
The court also clarified that even the display of products at a trade fair stand is considered “exhibiting” – regardless of whether the products are actively distributed or only handed out on request. The only decisive factor is that they are visibly presented.
According to the court, exhibiting the product without the required notice is also anti-competitive, as visitors to the trade fair are deprived of essential information, namely that the product may not yet be sold in Europe.
The court also rejected claims to prohibit “selling” and “offering”. The court saw no infringement here, as the tubes were only handed over after express insistence and with reference to the lack of approval. In this respect, the interim injunction was limited to the display.
Patent claims fail due to technical details
At the same time, the Swiss company claimed that the products on display infringed its Europe-wide patent for a specific type of PRP tube. The patent protects tubes in which three substances are layered on top of each other in a very specific order. There is hyaluronic acid at the bottom, a special separating agent (gel) on top and an anticoagulant at the very top.
However, the court dismissed this application as the Swiss company had not provided sufficient evidence that a patent had been infringed.
It is interesting to note that the court clarified that a patent-infringing offer can also exist if the product actually delivered does not have the patent-protected features at all, namely if the advertising and product description advertise exactly what the patent protects.
If the advertising describes all features of the patent claim as being present, an infringing offer exists regardless of whether the advertised product corresponds to the advertising description or not, i.e. whether it actually corresponds to the features of the invention or deviates from them.
In this case, however, the application failed on two technical points. Firstly, it was not clear from the product catalog and the label on the tube that the gel contained had the special properties prescribed by the patent. Secondly, the imprint “HA+gel+anticoagulant” did not indicate the order in which the substances were actually arranged in the tube. However, this sequence is precisely the heart of the patent.
What does this mean in practice?
Anyone wishing to present medical devices without CE certification at a trade fair may do so – but only on condition that a clearly visible sign informs every visitor that the products are not yet approved. A verbal warning from the trade fair staff is not sufficient. If the sign is missing, a competitor can immediately apply for a temporary injunction.
Competitors can invoke competition law even if they only exhibit at the same trade fair. A permanent competitive relationship on the German market is not required for this.
In patent law, the decision shows: Anyone who exhibits a patented product only as a “dummy” that does not contain the protected technology at all must nevertheless expect a patent infringement suit if the product advertising describes the patented feature. At the same time, the court made it clear that anyone wishing to enforce a patent claim in court must provide concrete evidence that all technical details of the patent have actually been realized in the challenged design.
Conclusion
The Düsseldorf Regional Court makes it clear that the exemption rule for exhibiting non-approved medical devices at trade fairs is interpreted narrowly. Anyone wishing to make use of it must put up a corresponding sign.
The potential patent infringement through advertising with the features of the patent claims is also interesting, even if the product offered does not actually have these features. Advertisers should therefore ensure that the information provided is correct in order to avoid committing patent infringement through advertising.
We are happy to
advise you about
Competition law!
