Rule 170 – Means of evidence and means of obtaining evidence
Print this page1. In proceedings before the Court, the means of evidence shall include in particular the following:
(a) written evidence, whether printed, hand-written or drawn, in particular documents, written witness statements, plans, drawings, photographs;
(b) expert reports and reports on experiments carried out for the purpose of the proceedings;
(c) physical objects, in particular devices, products, embodiments, exhibits, models;
(d) electronic files and audio/video recordings.
2. Means of obtaining evidence shall include in particular the following:
(a) hearing of the parties;
(b) requests for information;
(c) production of documents;
(d) summoning, hearing and questioning of witnesses;
(e) appointing, receiving opinions from, summoning and hearing and questioning of experts;
(f) ordering inspection of a place or a physical object;
(g) conducting comparative tests and experiments;
(h) sworn statements in writing (written witness statements).
3. Means of obtaining evidence shall further include [Article 59 and 60 of the Agreement]:
(a) ordering a party or a third party to produce evidence;
(b) ordering measures to preserve evidence
Case law
Court of First Instance
IPPT20250903, UPC LD Düsseldorf, Dai Nippon v Zapp
Extension of time limit to file Statement of defence but with one week only, to carry out analysis of film material related to prior disclosure and prior use claims (R.9.3(a) RoP, R. 23 RoP, R. 24(f) RoP, R. 170.1 RoP)
IPPT20250821, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, HL Display v Black Sheep
Application to deposit physical objects dismissed (R. 170.1(c) RoP)). No explanation was given why the exhibits could not have been filed earlier, notably together with its statement of defence. The request to deposit the objects is therefore rejected.
IPPT20250515, UPC CFI, CD Milan, Maschio Gaspardo v Spiridonakis Bros
Court allowed to inspect and to compare the objects of the proceedings (i.e., the patented and attacked objects) by viewing their dynamic functionality (Article 53(f) UPCA. R. 170 RoP). If a party offers to exhibit the object and submits a video of its operation to the court, the court may also order dynamic experiments and comparative tests
IPPT20250424, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Seoul Viosys v Laser Components
Report has the probative value appropriate for a private expert opinion (R. 170.1(b) RoP). None of the criticisms of the probative value of the TESCAN report produced by SEOUL VIOSYS are relevant to demonstrate that it is inappropriate.
IPPT20250120, UPC CFI, LD Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Evidence is not set exhaustively in R. 170 RoP. The measure requested by NJ consists of simple findings and not experiments within the meaning of Rule 201 RoP. The Court considers that the requested probatory measure is unnecessary in that it aims to show the said wigs in detail, whereas enlarged photographs of these wigs appear in NJ's reply brief, as indicated by the defendant.
IPPT20240925, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Valeo Electrification v Magna
Case management order regarding evidence during oral hearing in PI proceedings (R. 210 RoP). Evidence in PI proceedings is generally and primarily to be submitted in writing (R. 170.1 (a) and (b) RoP), with particular importance being attached to the submission of affidavits (R. 170.2 (h) RoP). In addition, the submission of physical objects, in particular devices, products, embodiments, exhibits and models (R. 170.1 (c) RoP), and of electronic files and audio/video files (R. 170.1 (d) RoP) may be an option. The Court does not summon witnesses in PI proceedings.
