ARTICLE
2 April 2025

LD Paris, March 24, 2025, Evidence Preservation Measures, UPC_CFI_813/2024

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 applicant of the request for evidence preservation has the duty, under Article 60.1 UPCA, to present reasonably available evidence to support the claim...
France Intellectual Property

1. Key takeaways

Urgency of filing a request for evidence preservation

The applicant of the request for evidence preservation has the duty, under Article 60.1 UPCA, to present reasonably available evidence to support the claim that its patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed. A period of two months (knowledge in October 2024; request in December 2024) for compiling the facts and evidence in the support of a request for the preservation of evidence is reasonable in the present case.

Assessment of the risk of evidence ceasing to be available

The applicant of the request for evidence preservation submitted evidence of the imminent start-up of the furnace, and it was obvious that the start-up would have prevented or made extremely difficult the requested seizure, which essentially concerns the interior of the furnace, to which the most important features of the patent-in-suit refer. In addition, the search for technical documentation at the manufacturer's site (present seizure) was linked to that of the furnace seizure at the operator's site (VALINEA, ORD_13139/2025). Ensuring the effectiveness of the evidence preservation measures justified the simultaneous execution of those measures at the manufacturer's site and at operator's site.

Principles of efficiency, justice, fairness and proportionality

The principle of efficiency, which justified an ex parte measure, was applied while also respecting the principles of justice, fairness and proportionality by strictly limiting the scope of the search for evidence to the sole characterization of the infringement and by rejecting all requests relating to the research of extent of the infringement, as well as by setting up upstream a circle of confidentiality as restricted as possible.

2. Division

LD Paris

3. UPC number

UPC_CFI_813/2024

4. Type of proceedings

ex parte evidence preservation measures

5. Parties

Applicant (Defendant in the main proceeding): MAGUIN SAS, France

Respondent (Claimant in the main proceedings): TIRU, France

6. Patent(s)

EP 3 178 578

7. Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 197.4 RoP, Art. 60.5 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.

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