ORD 32908/2025
—·EP 578 (incineration furnace) +1 more: WASTE INCINERATION PLANT AND PROCESS
- Verfahrensdetails
- Status—VerfahrensartVerfahrensantragKategorieVerfahrensführungsanordnungen
- Parteien
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Richter
- —
- Sprache
- —
- Erste Entscheidung
- 15. Juli 2025
- 2025-07-15BerufungsentscheidungGeneric Order
The Court of Appeal upheld the Luxembourg Local Division's preservation of evidence order granted ex parte against MAGUIN SAS (and VALINEA ENERGIE) at the request of TIRU, the patent proprietor of EP 578 (an incineration furnace-related patent). The CoA confirmed the lower division correctly exercised its discretion on urgency and the risk of evidence loss. MAGUIN's challenge to the ex parte grant and its loyalty duty arguments were rejected. The appeal was dismissed on all substantive grounds.
Rechtsfragen:Preservation of evidence (R. 192-197 RoP)Ex parte order urgency (R. 194.2(a) RoP)Risk of evidence destruction or unavailability (R. 194.2(c) / R. 197.1 RoP)Distinction between urgency in preservation of evidence vs. provisional measuresDuty of candour of applicant in ex parte proceedings - 2025-07-15BeweisGeneric Order
Court of Appeal order concerning an application for review of an order to preserve evidence in the dispute between MAGUIN and TIRU/VALINEA over patent EP3178578. The CoA upheld the first-instance order to preserve evidence, finding that: the time taken by TIRU to file the application did not undermine urgency; the risk of disappearance of evidence was sufficient; and the Local Division properly exercised its discretion. The appeal by MAGUIN was dismissed.
Rechtsfragen:Order for preservation of evidence (R.192-199 RoP)Urgency assessment for evidence preservationDistinction between urgency for evidence preservation and for provisional measuresDuty of candour when applying without hearing the defendant (R.192.3 RoP)
- 70D61F80A11C3D7E9D2CA67AD4B363E8_fr.pdf2025-07-15FR
- ORDER_MAGUIN%20v%20TIRU_2025-07-15_EN_version.pdf2025-07-15ENGLISH