ARTICLE
2 June 2025

LD Munich, May 28, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_63/2025

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
Ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders may be granted if the applicant provides sufficient evidence of likely infringement (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 197.3 RoP).
Germany Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Ex parte evidence preservation and inspection orders may be granted if the applicant provides sufficient evidence of likely infringement (Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 192, 197.3 RoP).

The court will grant such orders without hearing the defendant if the applicant submits all reasonably available evidence supporting a likelihood of patent infringement or threat thereof.

The review of ex parte orders is strictly limited to the justification at the time of issuance (Rule 197.3 RoP).

New facts or arguments presented during the review are not considered unless they relate to the original evidentiary basis. An oral hearing is held to ensure the defendant's right to be heard.

Sufficient probability of infringement is assessed based on a combination of factors (Art. 60 UPCA).

The court considers technical features, marketing materials, and prior statements by the defendant. The focus is on the general capability described in the patent, not specific parameters.

Lack of cooperation by the defendant can justify ex parte measures (Art. 60(5) UPCA).

The defendant's failure to provide specific technical details, despite repeated requests, may lead the court to conclude that evidence could be at risk if the defendant is forewarned.

Additional confidentiality obligations are not imposed if procedural safeguards are sufficient (Rules 192 ff. RoP).

The court rejected the defendant's request for further confidentiality measures, finding the existing framework adequate.

The losing party in review proceedings bears the costs (Rule 150 RoP).

The defendant was ordered to pay the costs after its application for review was unsuccessful.

2. Division

Local Division Munich

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_63/2025

4. Type of proceedings

Review of ex parte order for evidence preservation and inspection

5. Parties

Applicant: Nanoval GmbH & Co. KG
Respondent: ALD Vacuum Technologies GmbH

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 083 107

7. Jurisdictions

UPC

8. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 192 RoP, Rule 197.3 RoP, Rule 150 RoP
Art. 60 UPCA, Art. 60(5) and (6) UPCA

self

UPC_CFI_63_2025_LD_Munich

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More