UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 1332/2026

20. Apr. 2026·EP4285308

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Written Phase
Verfahrensart
Einstweilige Verfügung
Kategorie
Einstweilige Maßnahmen
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Sebastian Dworschak (Nordemann Czychowski & Partner Rechtsanwältinnen und Rechtsanwälte mbB); Ralf Emig (Maikowski & Ninnemann Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Thomas Lynker
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Richter
Sprache
German
Erste Entscheidung
27. Apr. 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-27
    Nur prozessualProzessualApplication for provisional measures

    The Local Division Düsseldorf granted an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order (Inspektions- und Beweissicherungsanordnung) under Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, 199 RoP in respect of EP 4 285 308 B8. The order authorises a court-appointed expert to inspect the respondents' premises in Berlin and Munich, secure digital and physical evidence relating to the 'Swissbit Cloud-TSE 2' product, and prepare a written expert report; the order becomes effective only upon the claimant lodging security of EUR 10,000. The application for four claimant representatives to be present was partially rejected, limiting attendance to one legal and one patent-attorney representative per site.

    Rechtsfragen:Ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order under Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, 199 RoPProbable infringement of claims 1, 6-10, 12 of EP 4 285 308 B8 by 'Swissbit Cloud-TSE 2' productUrgency and risk of evidence being concealed or removed to SwitzerlandProportionality of inspection measures and limitation of attending representativesSecurity for costs/damages under Rule 196.6 RoP in ex parte ordersSecrecy/confidentiality protection orders for inspection participantsUse of expert report and inspection results limited to main proceedings against respondents
Dokumente
DokumenttitelDatumÖffentlich
Final Order2026-05-22Öffentlich
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-05-22Nicht öffentlich
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-21Nicht öffentlich
action.issueDecision.decision2026-04-27Nicht öffentlich
Final Order2026-04-27Nicht öffentlich
Receipt2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Cover sheet2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Fee2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Application for provisional measures2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Proof of payment2026-04-20Nicht öffentlich
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • Probable infringement of claims 6-9, 1, 10 and 12 of EP 4 285 308 B8 by the Swissbit Cloud-TSE 2 product, based on BSI certification documents confirming features 6.1-6.4a and 6.5, and expert opinion supporting high probability of features 6.4b and 6.6a/b

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 60 UPCA, R. 194(d), 196 RoP

  • Risk that evidence would be concealed or moved to Switzerland if advance notice given to respondents, justifying ex parte procedure

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 197 RoP (ex parte)

  • Inspection measures are minimally invasive and do not restrict respondents' continued use of the accused embodiment

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 60 UPCA, proportionality

  • Proposed court expert (Patent Attorney Lars Grannemann, Cohausz & Florack) is suitable for the technical subject matter

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 196 RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • Request to have four named claimant UPC representatives present at both inspection sites simultaneously was excessive; only one legal and one patent-attorney representative per site allowed

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 196 RoP, proportionality

  • Request for a provisional costs order under Rule 211.1(d) RoP was rejected as inapplicable to inspection/evidence preservation proceedings

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 211.1(d) RoP (not applicable by analogy)