UPC CFI, LD Munich, 28 May 2025: Unsuccesfull review of ex parte order preserving evidence

Review of ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspection unsuccessful (R. 197.3 RoP). 

Sufficient likelihood of infringement: The court currently has no evidence that a Laval nozzle does not allow grain sizes above 50 um. Nor does the respondent explicitly claim this. This circumstance, together with other circumstances mentioned in the order, was sufficient for the court to find that there was a sufficient likelihood of infringement. 

Unclarity protective letters (R. 207 RoP). Insofar as the respondent argues that the protective letters submitted by the respondent reveal the different nozzle shape of the EIGA Premium system, it is the respondent's failure to clearly state in any of the protective letters submitted which system or systems are referred to in these protective letters. It is not the task of the court to remedy this deficiency by comparing the respondent's submissions in the opposition proceedings by way of an overall interpretation of all the pleadings submitted in various proceedings and to interpret on this basis what the respondent might have meant. 

Legally incorrect assumption that an order under Article 60 UPCA must be set aside because the risk of destruction of evidence has not been sufficiently proven. Review under R. 197.3 RoP is limited to the question whether the measures were rightly order; in this context, the possible destruction of evidence is irrelevant.

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Nanoval v ALD Vacuum Technologies