UPC CFI 1332/2026

Apr 20, 2026·EP4285308 Unitary patent · SECURELY REGISTERING A SEQUENCE OF TRANSACTIONS

Case details: Status
Written Phase
Action
Provisional measures
Category
Provisional measures
Parties: Claimants
fiskaly GmbHOperating co.
Representatives
Sebastian Dworschak-Nordemann Czychowski & Partner Rechtsanwältinnen und Rechtsanwälte mbB
Ralf Emigsupporting-Maikowski & Ninnemann Patentanwälte Partnerschaft mbB
Respondents
Swissbit AGOperating co.
Swissbit Germany AGOperating co.
Representatives
Thomas Lynker-TALIENS
Michael Platzödersupporting-Platzöder Patentanwaltsgesellschaft mbH
Division: Dusseldorf LD
Judges: Ronny Thomas
Thomas Adocker
Schumacher Jule
Technology: Electrical engineering
Digital communication · IT methods for management
Language: German
First decided: Apr 27, 2026
Last decision: Oct 13, 2026

How this compares

The court's record for this kind of case, counted in first-instance rulings. A figure in brackets is the number of rulings a rate rests on.

	Preliminary injunction granted	Median days to first decision
All UPC	54% (38/70)	124
Dusseldorf LD	Locked	Locked
Judge Ronny Thomas	Locked	Locked
Judge Thomas Adocker	Locked	Locked
Judge Schumacher Jule	—	Locked

At the UPC: fiskaly GmbH (1 case)·Swissbit AG (1 case)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in

Related cases

All proceedings on this patent

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2026

Decisions

2026-10-13
Provisional measuresPublic
Summary: In the inspection and evidence-preservation proceedings concerning EP 4 285 308, the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered the respondents to disclose the expert's detailed description and annexes, with specified redactions, to a restricted circle of the applicant's representatives and named staff, who are bound to secrecy also towards the applicant. The ruling sets a deadline for bringing the main action and rejects all further requests; no ruling on infringement or validity was made.
Show the legal issues (4)
- Release of the detailed description following a court-ordered inspection and evidence preservation (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 196-199 RoP)
- Scope of redactions of source code annexes
- Confidentiality club and protection of confidential information (R. 262A RoP)
- Deadline for bringing the main action (R. 198.1, R. 199.2 RoP)
2026-09-07
Provisional measuresPublic
Summary: Düsseldorf Local Division order (Panel 1, 7 Sep 2026, R. 197.3 RoP) reviewing its ex-parte inspection and evidence-preservation order of 27 April 2026 in fiskaly GmbH v SwissBit AG and Swissbit Germany AG (EP 4 285 308 B8, unitary patent, secure registration of transaction sequences): the review application is rejected except for the respondents' auxiliary request, which supplements the order so that the court expert must deliver the seized products, documents and media to the registry if a main action is brought. Headnotes: an inspection needs a plausible, not a proven, infringement; non-infringing alternatives defeat it only if they make the applicant's case implausible; a protective letter without non-infringement arguments can reinforce the suspicion.
Show the legal issues (4)
- R. 197.3/197.4 RoP review of an ex-parte inspection and evidence-preservation order (Art. 60 UPCA)
- plausibility standard for infringement, no fishing expedition (Centripetal v Palo Alto)
- non-infringing alternatives and a silent protective letter (headnotes)
- ex-parte justified by risk to evidence and cross-border group structure; proportionality vs. document production under Art. 59 UPCA
2026-07-15
Provisional measuresPublic
Summary: The court issued a confidentiality/secrecy order classifying certain information from the respondents' submission as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP, restricting claimant's access to its legal and patent representatives only. The claimant's applications of 25 June 2026 and 6 July 2026 to disclose the expert's infringement summary result (para. 68 of the expert's report) were rejected.
Show the legal issues (3)
- Confidentiality of expert report infringement summary (R. 262A RoP)
- Access restriction to confidential information (R. 9.1 RoP)
- Modification of confidentiality order (R. 333 RoP)
2026-04-27
Application for provisional measuresPublic
Summary: 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.
Show the legal issues (7)
- Ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order under Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, 199 RoP
- Probable infringement of claims 1, 6-10, 12 of EP 4 285 308 B8 by 'Swissbit Cloud-TSE 2' product
- Urgency and risk of evidence being concealed or removed to Switzerland
- Proportionality of inspection measures and limitation of attending representatives
- Security for costs/damages under Rule 196.6 RoP in ex parte orders
- Secrecy/confidentiality protection orders for inspection participants
- Use of expert report and inspection results limited to main proceedings against respondents

Documents

Show all 200 documents

Document title	Date	Public
Receipt	2026-10-15	Not public
Cover sheet	2026-10-15	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-10-15	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-10-15	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-10-15	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-10-15	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-10-15	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-10-15	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-10-15	Not public
Exhibit Defendant	2026-10-15	Not 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)