UPClytics
ENDE
Sign inStart trial
View all cases

UPC CFI 1696/2025

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

Follow
Case details
Status
Case Closed
Action
Generic
Category
Evidence and inspection
Parties
Claimants
Representatives
Respondents
Representatives
Division
Dusseldorf LD
Judges
Technology
  • Chemistry
    Materials, metallurgy · Chemical engineering · Environmental technology
Language
German
First decided
Nov 25, 2025
Last decision
Oct 14, 2026
How this compares
How long the court takes to reach a first decision.
Median days to first decision
All UPC124
Dusseldorf LDLocked
Judge Ronny ThomasLocked
Judge Schumacher JuleLocked
Judge Peter AgergaardLocked

At the UPC: Topsoe A/S (4 cases)·SYPOX GmbH (4 cases)

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

This dispute contains 3 other proceedings

UPC CoA 128/2026·UPC CFI 894/2026·UPC CFI 1849/2025

Start a free trial to see how each one ended.

More cases: Dusseldorf LD·2025

Decisions
  • 2026-10-14
    Public

    Summary: On a R. 333 RoP request by respondent 1 (SYPOX) for review of the rapporteur's order of 21 August 2026 on release of the detailed description from an inspection and evidence-preservation procedure, the panel maintained that order. It rejected the objections that the 'Pilot 1' plant fell outside the inspection order and that third-party (TUM) confidentiality interests barred release, the latter as new submissions and in any event unfounded.

    Show the legal issues (5)
    • R. 333 RoP review of case-management order
    • scope of inspection and evidence-preservation order (Pilot 1 plant)
    • release of detailed description under confidentiality club
    • third-party confidentiality interests (Art. 58 UPCA)
    • inadmissibility of new facts in R. 333 review
  • 2026-08-26
    Public

    Summary: The Düsseldorf Local Division ordered SYPOX GmbH to redact specified confidential portions of a court-appointed expert's detailed description (and annexes) from an earlier inspection and evidence-preservation order concerning EP 3 802 413, before disclosure to Topsoe A/S restricted to named individuals. Several annexes were withheld from disclosure entirely, and use of the disclosed material is limited to a future infringement action, which must be filed within a set deadline or the evidence-preservation measures lapse.

    Show the legal issues (4)
    • scope of disclosure of a court-appointed expert's detailed description following inspection and preservation of evidence
    • redaction of trade secrets, personal data, and confidential information irrelevant to infringement
    • restricting access to disclosed information to named individuals
    • Art. 58, 60 UPCA; R. 194(d), 196, 197, 199, 262A RoP
  • 2026-05-04
    Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (10)
    • Challenge to expert impartiality (Besorgnis der Befangenheit) under R. 197.3 RoP
    • Review (Prüfungsantrag) of ex parte inspection and evidence preservation order under R. 197.3 RoP
    • Dual-use character of inspected plant as basis for challenging inspection order
    • Attorney-Eyes-Only access restriction to expert report and secured data
    • Security for costs in respect of potential reactor opening (EUR 500,000)
    • Allocation of experts' costs for responding to bias challenge
    • Validity of patent relevant to inspection order (Rechtsbestand)
    • Whether a technically qualified judge is needed in inspection/evidence preservation review proceedings
    • Confidentiality and protection of trade secrets in inspection report
    • Scope of expert's mandate during on-site inspection
  • 2025-11-26
    Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (2)
    • Correction of address inaccuracies in inspection order
    • R. 353 RoP rectification
  • 2025-11-25
    Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199Public

    Summary: 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.

    Show the legal issues (3)
    • R. 199 RoP ex parte inspection and evidence preservation
    • Hydrogen production plant patent infringement
    • Confidentiality obligations pending release order
Documents
Show all 313 documents
Document titleDatePublic
Communication2026-10-14Not public
Publication of order2026-10-14Not public
Order2026-10-14Not public
Order2026-10-14Public
Communication2026-10-12Not public
Other Documents2026-10-12Not public
Order2026-10-12Not public
Order2026-10-12Not public
Receipt2026-09-30Not public
Cover sheet2026-09-30Not 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)