ARTICLE
14 January 2026

LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_1598_2025, UPC_CFI_1600_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.
The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC's Case Management System (CMS) following an order...
Germany Intellectual Property
Tomasz Klama’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Intellectual Property topic(s)
  • in China

1. Key takeaways

No CMS Access, No Say on Confidentiality

The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC's Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant's booth at the MEDICA trade fair. The defendant was served with the order and provided with an access code to the CMS. The order stipulated that the defendant would have the opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests after the court-appointed expert submitted their detailed description. The expert submitted the description, but the defendant had not appointed a representative or used the CMS access code. At this point in time, the defendant has not made any other submissions either. The court had no way to provide the report to the defendant via the CMS to hear their comments on confidentiality. The court decided to disclose the unredacted expert report directly to the applicant. It ruled that serving the documents outside the CMS (e.g., in paper form with translations) would cause unreasonable delays and undermine the applicant's interest in effective enforcement.

The court placed the responsibility squarely on the defendant. A party that receives a CMS access code and is notified of future procedural steps is obligated to appoint a representative in a timely manner. Failing to do so means forfeiting the opportunity to be heard on subsequent matters like confidentiality, as procedural efficiency and the applicant's rights will take precedence.

2. Division

LD Duesseldorf

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_1598_2025, UPC_CFI_1600_2025

4. Type of proceedings

Application for preservation of evidence and
inspection

5. Parties

Applicant:

LiNA Medical AG

Defendants:

Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd.

Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.

6. Patent(s)

EP 2 593 025 B1

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 198.1, 199.2, 196.2 RoP, Art. 60(8) UPCA

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.

[View Source]

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