UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1695/2025

Nov 21, 2025·EP2148123 · Closure element for a pipe

Follow
Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Counterclaim for revocation
Category
Counterclaim for revocation
Parties
Respondents
Representatives
  • Peter van Gemert
Division
The Hague LD
Judges
Technology
  • Mechanical engineering
    Mechanical elements
  • Other fields
    Civil engineering
Language
English
First decided
Apr 29, 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.
Patent revokedMedian days to first decision
All UPC37% (34/91)124
The Hague LDLockedLocked
Judge Edger BrinkmanLockedLocked
Judge Rute LopesLockedLocked
Judge Margot KokkeLockedLocked
Judge Uwe Ausfelder—Locked

At the UPC: TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V. (2 cases)·IQIP Holding B.V. (2 cases)

Start 14-day free trialAlready a user? Sign in
Related cases
All proceedings on this patent

This dispute contains 1 other proceedings

UPC CFI 721/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: The Hague LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-04-29
    Infringement ActionPublic

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • Production of evidence under R. 190 RoP / Article 59 UPCA
    • Public prior use defence
    • Proportionality, equity and fairness of evidence production orders
    • Protection of confidential information in evidence production
    • Scope and specification of evidence requested
Documents
Show all 124 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Order2026-08-18Not public
Order2026-08-18Public
Receipt2026-07-13Not public
Cover sheet2026-07-13Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-07-13Not public
Submission Defendant2026-07-13Not public
Receipt2026-06-18Not public
Cover sheet2026-06-18Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-18Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-06-18Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • IQIP has presented reasonably available evidence to support its claim of public prior use sufficient to meet the threshold for an evidence production order

    RespondentLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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

    ClaimantLegal basis: R. 190(1) RoP; R. 262 / R. 262A RoP
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • The full scope of the production request (including timing documents and documents on delivery before the priority date) should be granted as submitted

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 190 RoP / Article 59 UPCA