Article 59

Order to produce evidence

1.   At the request of a party which has presented reasonably available evidence sufficient to support its claims and has, in substantiating those claims, specified evidence which lies in the control of the opposing party or a third party, the Court may order the opposing party or a third party to present such evidence, subject to the protection of confidential information. Such order shall not result in an obligation of self-incrimination.

2.   At the request of a party the Court may order, under the same conditions as specified in paragraph 1, the communication of banking, financial or commercial documents under the control of the opposing party, subject to the protection of confidential information.

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250422, UPC CoA, Amazon v Nokia
Appeal against an order rejecting the production of evidence devoid of purpose after withdrawal of infringement action and proceedings are closed  (R. 360 RoP,, Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP). An appeal is devoid of purpose if there is no longer any reason to decide on it. As a result, the appeal has become devoid of purpose.

IPPT20240924, UPC CoA, Guangdong OPPO v Panasonic
Appeal against order rejecting a request for production of evidence admissible (R. 220.1(c) RoP, Article 59 UPCA). It does not matter whether the impugned order grants or rejects the request for production of evidence. On a proper interpretation of R.220.1(c) RoP, it should be understood as: “orders on applications referred to in …”. Order to produce evidence is not only open to a claimant, but also to a defendant, such as in the present case, an order to produce (counter)-evidence. (Article 59 UPCA, Rule 190 RoP, Article 6 Enforcement Directive). In case of a FRAND-defence an order to produce evidence (R. 190 RoP) must strike a balance between the defendant’s interest in obtaining evidence which may be useful for its FRAND-defence, and the interest of the other party and its contracting parties in protecting confidential information. Disclosure of evidence to be limited to what - at the discretion of the court – is strictly relevant, proportionate and necessary. Margin of discretion includes decision-making on the request in accordance with what the judge-rapporteur, the presiding judge or the panel has decided on the order in which issues are to be decided pursuant to R.334(e) RoP. The assessment of a request for an order to produce evidence may depend on the stage of the proceedings. Such a request may be considered not to meet the criteria of necessity, relevance and proportionality at one stage of the proceedings, but could be considered to meet those criteria at a later stage. 

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260319, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Pirelli v Sichuan

Inspection of seized product samples to be conducted in the presence of both parties at oral hearing. (Article 59 UPCA, Article 60 UPCA, Rule 199 RoP). Without the cutting and dissection operations previously indicated in the order of February 13, 2026.

IPPT20260204, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Bostik v Henkel
Defendants ordered to produce evidence in the form of technical data sheets of older products (Article 59 UPCA, Rule 190 RoP).It is reasonable and proportionate to grant the request to produce documents.The information is useful and necessary for Bostik to respond to the defendants' argument regarding the obsolescence of information from 2016.

IPPT20250916, UPC CFI LD Mannheim, Huawei v MediaTek
Order to produce confidential information regarding licence agreements.  (Rule 190. RoP, Article 59 UPCA ) - Claimant to submit confidential licence agreements with passages redacted insofar as the claimant does not refer to these passages for its factual allegations and legal argumentation. 

IPPT20250403, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Promosome v BioNTech
Request to produce evidence rejected (Article 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP). The Defendants have not indicated what fact(s) they intend to prove by relying on the requested evidence. 

IPPT20241022, UPC CFI LD Hamburg, 10x Genomics v Vizgen
Panel review of order to produce documents which are the subject of parallel US proceedings (R. 333 RoP, Article 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP). Defence of abuse of rights can be considered by the UPC. Production of emails allegedly showing that the first claimant had acted, including the acquisition of […], with the aim of securing a dominant position in the SST market, and that the second claimant was aware that the […] licence or its transfer to the first claimant would harm the defendant. Production of documents regarding specific instructions by first claimant of its employees to destabilise the market. Price-related abuse of a dominant position is not relevant either to the question of patent infringement or to any secondary claims arising from such infringement. The issue of an alleged restriction of competition resulting from a company’s pricing policy has no connection to a patent dispute. Order is proportionate, documents are covered by confidentiality regime (R. 262A RoP) and disclosure is necessary as defendant has no other means to obtain knowledge of the documents because of US protective order and lack of consent for cross-use. Defendant not required to conduct evidence gathering proceedings in the USA in lieu of its applications for evidence production under Article 59 UPCA