Order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted (Article 60 UPCA , Rule. 192 , 199 RoP) .
Applicant has credibly demonstrated that the patent may be infringed by the respondent (Art. 60 (1) UPCA).
It is possible that the first respondent uses saw wires suspected of infringing the patent application in its production and that the second respondent stores said saw wires.
The applicant found a wire from Sunnywell at a disposal site used by the first respondent.
The supplier, did not deny the use of the saw wires, but merely stated that that it would no longer use products from the Sunnywell company in future.
The application is urgent and issued ex parte (Rule. 194.2 a),b),c) 197 RoP).
Despite the pre-trial correspondence, the first respondent has neither issued a cease-and-desist declaration nor provided information about the manufacturer from whom it obtains the saw wires.
Without the application, the applicant will not be able to ascertain the origin of the wires that may infringe the patent.
Once the stock of saw wires has been used up by the first respondent, the applicant will no longer be able to secure evidence and will not be able to examine the wires in question.
It is not detrimental that the applicant has been aware of the wires since March 2024 and that the revocation of the opt-out was not registered until September 2025
however. Before the opt-out was revoked, the applicant was unable to file the application before the UPC.
In view of the fact that the UPC is still a relatively new court system, the Chamber does not consider it detrimental to urgency at this stage if the party makes strategic considerations as to whether to submit a patent to the jurisdiction of the UPC and if these considerations take a certain amount of time.
There is currently a risk that the respondent will transfer the remaining wires to one of its other production sites. It is not possible to waive the requirement to provide security for an ex parte order (R. 196.6 RoP).
Special circumstances to justify such an order do not exist in the present case, as the preliminary correspondence shows that the applicant has had time since June 2024 to prepare the provision of appropriate security.
