In a decision issued on 14 October 2024 by the Hague Local Division of the UPC (UPC_CFI_327/2024), judge-rapporteur Brinkman partially awarded the plaintiff an application for a request to produce evidence to support their infringement claim. In the application, the plaintiff requested that the defendant be ordered to produce documentation relating to their allegedly infringing system, including detailed manuals, technical specification documents and training materials. The defendant opposed the request, stating that such an order would amount to a fishing expedition and inevitably compromise their confidential information.
Although JR Brinkman held that substantive issues of infringement and validity were for the panel to decide in proceedings on the merits, a prima facie case of infringement was found to exist. However, the JR held that the plaintiff's application was unjustifiably broad, and failed in certain respects to specify the purpose or existence of the requested evidence. As such, the order was awarded on a limited basis for the sole production of technical specification documents of the defendant's system; these documents were relevant to certain disputed features of the claims in question.
The JR's limitation of the request in this instance constitutes a noteworthy counterpoint to far wider discovery procedures that may be required when litigating elsewhere. Contrastingly, this decision highlights that insufficiently specified requests for production of evidence are unlikely to be tolerated before the UPC, where standards of relevance and proportionality can restrict the scope of any discovery exercise.
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.
