UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 1332/2026

Apr 20, 2026·EP4285308

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional Measures
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Sebastian Dworschak (Nordemann Czychowski & Partner Rechtsanwältinnen und Rechtsanwälte mbB); Ralf Emig (Maikowski & Ninnemann Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB)
Respondents
Reps: Thomas Lynker
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Language
German
First decided
Apr 27, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-04-27
    Procedural onlyProceduralApplication 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.

    Legal issues: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
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
Final Order2026-05-22Public
Service Receipt/Service Document2026-05-22Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-05-21Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-04-27Not public
Final Order2026-04-27Not public
Receipt2026-04-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-20Not public
Fee2026-04-20Not public
Application for provisional measures2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Exhibit Claimant2026-04-20Not public
Proof of payment2026-04-20Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 197 RoP (ex parte)

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 60 UPCA, proportionality

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 196 RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

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