1. Key takeaways
An order for inspection and/or preservation of evidence requires a sufficient likelihood of infringement
Sufficient, when a patent infringement appears plausible; excessive standards of proof must not be applied.
The existence of non-infringing alternatives does not automatically defeat the infringement likelihood unless those alternatives make the applicant’s submission implausible.
Additional factors increasing likelihood:
Factor 1: Respondents refused during license negotiations to disclose their technical solution.
Factor 2: Respondents’ protective letter contained no non-infringement arguments.
No temporal urgency requirement
The Local Division found in line with UPC_CoA_2/2025 that neither the UPCA nor the RoP require temporal urgency for inspection/evidence preservation orders – in contrast to provisional measures.
2. Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_1332/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Provisional measures
5. Parties
Claimant: fiskaly GmbH
Defendant: Swissbit AG and Swissbit Germany AG
6. Patent(s)
EP 4 285 308 B8
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 197.3 RoP.
To view the full article please click here.
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]
