UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 1696/2025

Nov 21, 2025·EP3802413: HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY STEAM METHANE REFORMING

Case details
Status
Written Phase
Action
Generic
Category
Evidence & Inspection
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Christine Kanz (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Klaus Haft (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Alexander Bothe (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Antonia Wilhelm (Hoyng Rokh Monegier); Thomas Pfeffermann (Hoyng Rokh Monegier)
Respondents
Reps: Matthias Hülsewig (Preu Bohlig & Partner); Corinna Szlauer (Preu Bohlig & Partner)
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Language
German
First decided
Nov 25, 2025
Last decision
May 4, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-04
    Generic Order

    The court rejected the respondent SYPOX GmbH's challenge to the impartiality (Befangenheit) of court-appointed experts Harlacher and Solf, finding no objective grounds for bias. The review application (Prüfungsantrag) under R. 197.3 RoP against the inspection and evidence preservation order was largely rejected, with the order maintained, except that the previously ordered security of EUR 500,000 for reactor opening was confirmed. The court also clarified that the costs of the experts' statements responding to the bias challenge are borne by the claimant Topsoe A/S.

    Legal issues:Challenge to expert impartiality (Besorgnis der Befangenheit) under R. 197.3 RoPReview (Prüfungsantrag) of ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order under R. 197.3 RoPDual-use character of inspected plant as basis for challenging inspection orderAttorney-Eyes-Only access restriction to expert report and secured dataSecurity for costs in respect of potential reactor opening (EUR 500,000)Allocation of experts' costs for responding to bias challengeValidity of patent relevant to inspection order (Rechtsbestand)Whether a technically qualified judge is needed in inspection/evidence preservation review proceedingsConfidentiality and protection of trade secrets in inspection reportScope of expert's mandate during on-site inspection
  • 2025-11-26
    EvidenceApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199

    The Düsseldorf Local Division issued a correction order amending address details in the inspection order of 25 November 2025 for the SYPOX/Kerner hydrogen production premises, rectifying inaccuracies in street addresses specified in the body of the order.

    Legal issues:Correction of address inaccuracies in inspection orderR. 353 RoP rectification
  • 2025-11-25
    EvidenceApplication for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199

    The Düsseldorf Local Division granted an ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order at the premises and production sites of SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH regarding hydrogen production equipment (SYPOX H-200/H-400) allegedly infringing Topsoe's EP 3 802 413 B1.

    Legal issues:R. 199 RoP ex parte inspection and evidence preservationHydrogen production plant patent infringementConfidentiality obligations pending release order
Documents
Document titleDatePublic
action.communication.general2026-05-13Not public
Receipt2026-05-07Not public
Cover sheet2026-05-07Not public
Document Claimant2026-05-07Not public
Final Order2026-05-04Public
action.phaseChange.caseClose2026-05-04Not public
action.issueDecision.decision2026-05-04Not public
Final Order2026-05-04Not public
Other Documents2026-04-28Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-04-14Not public
Order2026-04-14Public
Receipt2026-04-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-10Not public
Further pleadings2026-04-10Not public
Receipt2026-04-10Not public
Cover sheet2026-04-10Not public
Submission Claimant/Applicant/Appellant2026-04-10Not public
Submission Claimant/Applicant/Appellant2026-04-10Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-30Not public
Other Documents2026-03-30Not public
Other Documents2026-03-30Not public
Other Documents2026-03-30Not public
Hearing recording reference document2026-03-23Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-23Not public
Order2026-03-23Public
action.communication.general2026-03-20Not public
Receipt2026-03-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-20Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-20Not public
action.communication.general2026-03-20Not public
Other Documents2026-03-16Not public
Other Documents2026-03-16Not public
Other Documents2026-03-16Not public
Receipt2026-03-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-12Not public
Further pleadings2026-03-12Not public
Receipt2026-03-12Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-12Not public
Further pleadings2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Exhibit Defendant2026-03-12Not public
Receipt2026-03-09Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-09Not public
Further pleadings2026-03-09Not public
Receipt2026-03-06Not public
Cover sheet2026-03-06Not public
Document Defendant2026-03-06Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-03-02Not public
Order2026-03-02Public
Receipt2026-02-27Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-27Not public
Further pleadings2026-02-27Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-27Not public
Receipt2026-02-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-26Not public
Submission Claimant2026-02-26Not public
Submission Claimant2026-02-26Not public
Submission Claimant2026-02-26Not public
Submission Claimant2026-02-26Not public
Receipt2026-02-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-20Not public
Document Claimant2026-02-20Not public
action.communication.general2026-02-20Not public
Receipt2026-02-20Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-20Not public
Application document Claimant2026-02-20Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-02-12Not public
Order2026-02-12Public
Other Documents2026-02-10Not public
Receipt2026-02-02Not public
Cover sheet2026-02-02Not public
Further pleadings2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2026-02-02Not public
Receipt2026-01-26Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-26Not public
Other document Claimant2026-01-26Not public
Receipt2026-01-21Not public
Cover sheet2026-01-21Not public
Other document Claimant2026-01-21Not public
action.issueOrder.order2026-01-19Not public
Order2026-01-19Public
Other Documents2026-01-16Not public
Other Documents2026-01-16Not public
Other Documents2026-01-16Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2026-01-16Not public
Other Documents2026-01-16Not public
Other Documents2026-01-16Not public
Other Documents2026-01-16Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-13Not public
Other Documents2026-01-12Not public
Other Documents2026-01-12Not public
action.summons.oralHearing2026-01-07Not public
Summons2026-01-07Not public
Receipt2025-12-25Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-25Not public
Application document Defendant2025-12-25Not public
Exhibit document Defendant2025-12-25Not public
Other Documents2025-12-11Not public
Other Documents2025-12-09Not public
Cover sheet2025-12-01Not public
Other document Claimant2025-12-01Not public
Receipt2025-12-01Not public
action.publishOrderDecision.case2025-11-28Not public
Other Documents2025-11-28Not public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-28Not public
Other Documents2025-11-28Not public
Order2025-11-28Public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-26Not public
Order2025-11-26Public
action.issueOrder.order2025-11-25Not public
Order2025-11-25Public
Cover sheet2025-11-21Not public
Fee2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Exhibit document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Proof of payment2025-11-21Not public
Application document Claimant2025-11-21Not public
Receipt2025-11-21Not public
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

  • The experts Harlacher and Solf did not exhibit bias; their conduct during inspection (including ambiguous scope decisions on 'Pilot 2', data copying approach, and inquiry about smartphone photos) reflected professional judgment, not partiality.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Standard for expert bias: justified doubts from perspective of a knowledgeable and reasonable observer; R. 197.3 RoP

  • The dual-use capability of the plant (hydrogen vs. methanol) is irrelevant to the legality of the inspection order, since suitability for patent-infringing use (hydrogen production) is sufficient.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 60(1) UPCA; R. 194.1(d), R. 194.2 RoP

  • The security of EUR 500,000 ordered on 23 March 2026 for reactor opening should be maintained, given credible evidence that opening a similar reactor caused irreversible damage.

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 196.6 RoP; precautionary principle for reactor opening security

  • The costs of the experts' statements in response to the bias challenge are part of the costs of the inspection and evidence preservation under Section XVI of the original order, and are thus borne by Topsoe A/S.

    RespondentLegal basis: Section XVI of the order of 25 November 2025; Veranlasserprinzip
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

  • Expert Harlacher was biased due to his decision to inspect 'Pilot 2', attempt to access the CEO's private smartphone, broad data copying ('uferloser Datenabgriff'), and inspection of 'Pilot 0'.

    RespondentLegal basis: Besorgnis der Befangenheit standard

  • Expert Solf was biased due to inspecting 'Pilot 1' despite allegedly recognising it lacked key patent features, and due to inappropriate depth of the detailed description.

    RespondentLegal basis: Besorgnis der Befangenheit standard

  • The expert report and all inspection results should be declared inadmissible and destroyed due to expert bias.

    RespondentLegal basis: Consequence of found bias in R. 197.3 RoP review

  • Access to the entire expert report and all secured data should be restricted to claimant's external attorneys only (Attorney-Eyes-Only) as a general measure independent of confidentiality claims.

    RespondentLegal basis: Trade secret/confidentiality protection

  • An additional security exceeding EUR 500,000 (at least EUR 2,000,000) should be ordered to cover know-how loss risk in the methanol market.

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 196.6 RoP

  • The validity of the patent should be examined in the inspection review proceedings, given the pending nullity action filed on 11 March 2026.

    RespondentLegal basis: Art. 60 UPCA; UPC_CoA_327/2025 (Maguin v. Tiru)

  • A technically qualified judge should be added to the panel under R. 33 RoP (applied by analogy) for the review proceedings.

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 33 RoP (by analogy)