UPClytics
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 1695/2025

·EP2148123: Closure element for a pipe

Verfahrensdetails
Status
Verfahrensart
Verletzung
Kategorie
Hauptverletzungsklage
Parteien
Division
Richter
Sprache
Erste Entscheidung
29. Apr. 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-04-29
    Nur prozessualProzessualInfringement Action

    The Court partially granted the defendants' R. 190 RoP request for production of evidence (technical specification documents, plug specifications, instructions for use, photos, towing plans, and project reports relating to the Prior Plug for the 2008 Rhyl Flats and Gunfleet Sands Projects). The request was found to be overly broad and was limited: parts seeking documents that do not exist or are not in IQIP's possession were excluded, and parts seeking timing documents were denied as IQIP had conceded the plugs were delivered before the priority date. Confidentiality conditions were imposed on the produced documents.

    Rechtsfragen:Production of evidence under R. 190 RoP / Article 59 UPCAPublic prior use defenceProportionality, equity and fairness of evidence production ordersProtection of confidential information in evidence productionScope and specification of evidence requested
Dokumente
  • 20260430%20R.%20190%20order%20IQIP%20v%20TMS%20UPC_CFI_721-2025%20UPC_CFI_0001695-2025.pdf2026-04-29EN
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.
  • IQIP has presented reasonably available evidence to support its claim of public prior use sufficient to meet the threshold for an evidence production order

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 190(1) RoP / Article 59(1) UPCA
  • Documents that IQIP stated do not exist or are not in its possession (invoices, signed order agreements, tender documents, contracts) should be excluded from the production order

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 190(1) RoP
  • Requests for documents showing timing of plug delivery are unnecessary because IQIP conceded the plugs were delivered before the priority date, making a production order disproportionate

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Articles 41(3) and 42 UPCA; Article 3 Enforcement Directive (proportionality)
  • Confidential information contained in produced documents should be subject to a strict confidentiality regime with limited access

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: R. 190(1) RoP; R. 262 / R. 262A RoP
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.
  • The full scope of the production request (including timing documents and documents on delivery before the priority date) should be granted as submitted

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 190 RoP / Article 59 UPCA