UPC CoA 113/2026

At the UPC: WEPA NEDERLAND B.V. (2 cases)·Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag (2 cases)

• 2026-09-03
  AppealPublic

  Summary: Court of Appeal order (Panel 1c, 3 Sep 2026) on WEPA Nederland B.V.'s appeal against The Hague Local Division's review order of 9/22 June 2026 confirming an ex-parte order for the preservation of evidence and inspection obtained by Essity Hygiene and Health AB (EP 3 289 139, tissue paper with Miscanthus fibres): the ex-parte order and the review order are revoked only insofar as they allowed the bailiff and expert to put direct technical questions to WEPA personnel, which Art. 60 UPCA does not permit (headnote 2); the expert must redraft his report without answers to such questions and all copies of the original report must be destroyed; the ex-parte issuance, the coverage of promotional and commercial documentation (headnote 1), the validity assessment and the disclosure duty were upheld; the prior-use-right and compensation submissions are new on appeal and disregarded (headnote 3 on prior use); the appeal is rejected in all other respects and each party bears its own costs at both instances.

  Show the legal issues (5)

  • Art. 60 UPCA evidence preservation covers promotional and commercial documentation (headnote 1)
  • no power to let a bailiff or expert question the defendant's personnel on technical details; practical information such as passwords may be ordered (headnote 2, R. 196.1(d) RoP)
  • prior use right (Art. 28 UPCA) does not defeat evidence preservation unless the infringement action clearly has no prospect (headnote 3)
  • ex-parte order justified by risk of evidence ceasing to be available; urgency not required (Valinea v Tiru)
  • new submissions on appeal disregarded (Art. 73(4) UPCA, R. 222.2 RoP)
• 2026-07-27
  AppealPublic

  Summary: In a case management order on WEPA's appeal against the Hague Local Division's confirmation of an evidence-preservation order, the Court of Appeal held that the fixed fee for an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP concerning Art. 60 or 61 UPCA orders is EUR 5,000, and that no value-based fee arises because the anticipated first-instance value of EUR 400,000 is below the EUR 500,000 threshold. WEPA having paid EUR 14,600, the Registry was instructed to reimburse EUR 9,600.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • appeal court fees under R. 228 RoP and the Table of Court Fees
  • fixed fee for an appeal under R. 220.1(c) RoP concerning Art. 60/61 UPCA orders
  • value-based fee threshold and reimbursement of overpaid court fees