- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
1 Key takeaways
The court ordered the full disclosure of an expert's inspection report to the patentee because the defendant failed to identify any trade secrets within the given deadline, confirming that parties must actively claim confidentiality to receive protection
Following a court-ordered inspection (saisie-contrefaçon) at a trade fair, an independent expert prepared a detailed report on the findings. The defendant, whose premises were inspected, was given the unredacted report and a deadline to identify any information it considered a trade secret or otherwise confidential.
The defendant did not respond. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant had no confidentiality interests to protect. The judge ordered the full, unredacted expert report, including all annexes, to be disclosed to the patentee.
This decision underscores a "claim it or lose it" approach to confidentiality at the UPC. The court provides a clear opportunity for a party to assert its rights to protect trade secrets. If that party remains silent, the court will not protect those interests on its own initiative. The burden is squarely on the party whose information is at stake.
The patentee must file the main infringement action within a strict deadline, and the evidence gathered from the inspection can only be used for that specific case, otherwise the inspection order will be revoked
The court set a deadline for the patentee to file its main infringement action (max. 31 calendar days or 20 working days), failing which the inspection measures will be revoked (Art. 60(8) 8 UPCA in conjunction with R. 198(1), 199(2) RoP).
The court order explicitly states that the expert's report and all other findings from the inspection may only be used in the main proceedings on the merits against the defendant, underscoring a "use it or lose it" approach.
2 Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
3 UPC number
UPC_CFI_885/2025
4 Type of proceedings
Application for inspection and preserve evidence
5 Parties
OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH
v.
STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.
6 Patent(s)
EP 2 983 864 B1
7 Jurisdictions
Germany
8 Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 60 UPCA, Rules 194(d), 196, 197, 198(1), 199 RoP
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.
