View all cases
- Case details
- Status—ActionProcedural applicationCategoryCase management orders
- Parties
- Respondents
- MAGUIN SASOperating co.
- VALINEA ENERGIE SASUOperating co.
Representatives- Cyrille Amar-Amar Goussu Staub
- Division
- Court of Appeal
- Judges
- —
- Technology
- ChemistryEnvironmental technology
- Language
- —
- First decided
- Jul 15, 2025
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
| Median days to first decision | |
|---|---|
| All UPC | 124 |
At the UPC: TIRU SAS (18 cases)·MAGUIN SAS (9 cases)
Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patentThis dispute contains 14 other proceedings
UPC CoA 127/2026·UPC CoA 80/2026·UPC CoA 81/2026·UPC CFI 1323/2026·UPC CFI 1325/2026 and 9 more
2 other defendants litigating the same or a related patent
Start a free trial to see how each one ended.
More cases: Court of Appeal·2025
Decisions
- 2025-07-15
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (5)
- 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 measures
- Duty of candour of applicant in ex parte proceedings
Documents
- 70D61F80A11C3D7E9D2CA67AD4B363E8_fr.pdf2025-07-15FR
- ORDER_MAGUIN%20v%20TIRU_2025-07-15_EN_version.pdf2025-07-15EN