UPC CFI 629/2026

R.190 RoP application was not premature as the facts to be proven were clearly identified and LABS disputed the underlying assertions, satisfying condition 4(a) on proportionality/timing

Defendants presented reasonably available evidence (sales data, marketing brochures, SEC filings, post-published scientific studies) to prima facie support assertions that Motiva SilkSurface was publicly available before the priority date and that its surface parameters fell within the patent claims

Requested documentary evidence (sales figures, promotional materials, test reports, technical specifications, regulatory documents, Design History File) is specified and within LABS's control, and could conclusively prove assertions (a) and (b)

Confidentiality is adequately protected by limiting access to legal team, independent experts, and one employee subject to non-disclosure obligations

Regulatory framework (Medical Device Directive / Medical Device Regulation) requires LABS to retain relevant technical and certification documents for 15 years, so such documents should exist

Post-priority physical samples (request I.c) are necessary because pre-priority samples held by Defendants may be argued by LABS as non-representative or degraded

Application is premature, circumvents the procedural framework, and is disproportionate at this stage of proceedings before the Reply to Defence has been filed

The requests are too broadly defined and producing all versions in all languages of marketing/technical documents would be disproportionate

Simply asserting that documents are confidential and internal is sufficient grounds to deny the production request