Article 60

Order to preserve evidence and to inspect premises

1.   At the request of the applicant which has presented reasonably available evidence to support the claim that the patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed the Court may, even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits of the case, order prompt and effective provisional measures to preserve relevant evidence in respect of the alleged infringement, subject to the protection of confidential information.
2.   Such measures may include the detailed description, with or without the taking of samples, or the physical seizure of the infringing products, and, in appropriate cases, the materials and implements used in the production and/or distribution of those products and the documents relating thereto.

3.   The Court may, even before the commencement of proceedings on the merits of the case, at the request of the applicant who has presented evidence to support the claim that the patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed, order the inspection of premises. Such inspection of premises shall be conducted by a person appointed by the Court in accordance with the Rules of Procedure.

4.   At the inspection of the premises the applicant shall not be present itself but may be represented by an independent professional practitioner whose name has to be specified in the Court's order.

5.   Measures shall be ordered, if necessary without the other party having been heard, in particular where any delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the proprietor of the patent, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed.

6.   Where measures to preserve evidence or inspect premises are ordered without the other party in the case having been heard, the parties affected shall be given notice, without delay and at the latest immediately after the execution of the measures. A review, including a right to be heard, shall take place upon request of the parties affected with a view to deciding, within a reasonable period after the notification of the measures, whether the measures are to be modified, revoked or confirmed.

7.   The measures to preserve evidence may be subject to the lodging by the applicant of adequate security or an equivalent assurance intended to ensure compensation for any prejudice suffered by the defendant as provided for in paragraph 9.

8.   The Court shall ensure that the measures to preserve evidence are revoked or otherwise cease to have effect, at the defendant's request, without prejudice to the damages which may be claimed, if the applicant does not bring, within a period not exceeding 31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is the longer, action leading to a decision on the merits of the case before the Court.

9.   Where the measures to preserve evidence are revoked, or where they lapse due to any act or omission by the applicant, or where it is subsequently found that there has been no infringement or threat of infringement of the patent, the Court may order the applicant, at the defendant's request, to provide the defendant with appropriate compensation for any damage suffered as a result of those measures.

Case law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250214, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Weighing of interest; irreparable harm (Article 60(5) UPCA; Article 62(2) UPCA). The interest of Sibionics to be able to enter and stay on the market during proceedings on the merits do not outweigh the interests of Abbott by an immediate injunction. The damages of Sibionics due to later market entry should the injunction be lifted in proceedings on the merit will be easier to quantify, whereas Abbott’s damages due to the long term effect of price erosion is difficult to quantify, also in view of its influence on the price of similar devices marketed by third parties and on the prices set by insurers. Sibionics discounts will ead to a negative price spiral which, especially in this type of market, is very difficult to reverse, thus causing irreparable harm to Abbott. 

IPPT20240723, UPC CoA, PMA v AWM
Application to preserve evidence or inspect premises implies a request to disclose the outcome of the measures (evidence) to the applicant and the procedure aims not merely to preserve evidence but also to disclose the evidence to the applicant (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 192 et seq. RoP). Order to preserve evidence or inspect premises must be subject to the protection of confidential information (Rule 196 RoP). Where the evidence may contain confidential information, this entails that the Court must hear the other party before deciding whether and to what extent to disclose the evidence to the applicant. The Court must hear the other party on the request for disclosure even if this party has decided not to file a remedy against the order to preserve evidence or inspect premises. For the revocation or otherwise ceasing to have effect of the measures (Article 60(8) UPCA) the Court must, as a general principle, specify in its order a time period that starts to run from the date of disclosure of the evidence to the applicant or from the date on which the Court has made a final decision not to grant the applicant access to the evidence.

IPPT20250528, UPC CoA, Centripetal v Palo Alto
Order rejecting application for the preservation of evidence dated 3 March 2025 revoked and referred back to the Court of First Instance. (Rule 192 RoP). Standard of proof for orders for provisional and protective measures. (Art. 62, Art. 60 UPCA, R. 198 or R. 213 RoP). Since such orders are issued by summary proceedings where parties have limited opportunities to present facts and evidence, the standard of proof must not be set too high. At the same time, it must not be set too low in order to prevent the defendant from being harmed by an order for a provisional or protective measure that is revoked at a later date. The purpose of an application for preservation of evidence differs from that of an action on the merits. (Article 60 UPCA). If the same standard of proof were applied to an application for preservation of evidence as to an action on the merits, the procedure established by Art. 60 UPCA would lose much of its practical utility . The requirement under Art. 60(1) UPCA to provide reasonably available evidence to support the claim that the patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed is therefore a lower bar than the burden of proof for a claimant in an infringement action. The bar is in particular lower with respect to those aspects of the alleged infringement for which no evidence is reasonably available to the applicant, and for which the orders to preserve and disclose evidence are therefore particularly relevant. Mere speculation that the patent has been infringed, is generally not sufficient to justify an order to preserve evidence. Necessity requirement . A fair balance must be struck between the fundamental rights of the defendant and those of the applicant. (R. 192.2 and R. 199.2 RoP). It follows that the procedure under Art. 60 UPCA can only be used if, and to the extent that, it is necessary for the effective enforcement of a patent. Accordingly, the applicant must provide, in its application, the reasons why the proposed measures are needed. Where the preservation of evidence can be implemented by several equally effective measures, the measure that is least prejudicial to the defendant should be preferred.

Court of First Instance

IPPT20260123, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Van Loon Beheer v Inverquark
No basis for ordering a supplementary expert opinion following a detailed expert description regarding an ex-parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 196.4 RoP, Rule 197 RoP, Rule 199 RoP) It is incompatible to reach a decision on the timely release of the expert’s detailed description by requesting clarification of factual accuracy of the prepared description. Protection of the respondent does not require the obtaining of a supplementary expert opinion. Unredacted version of the expert’s description to be disclosed to the applicant in the absence of any confidentiality interests asserted by the respondent. (Rule 262A RoP)

IPPT20251219, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Lina Medical v Tonglu Qianyan
Following an order for preservation and inspection of evidence, the unredacted version of the detailed description provided by the expert is disclosed to the Applicant without giving the Defendant the opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 199, Rule 197, 196 RoP). Disclosure does not put the Defendant at an unreasonable disadvantage. The defendant cannot be reached via the CMS. Order was served on 18 November 2025, and the Defendant had been aware of the access code to the CMS. The Defendant had sufficient time to prepare for this situation and hand over the access code to a UPC representative. If the Defendant chooses not to do so, that is its own decision. This cannot be to the disadvantage of the Applicant.

IPPT20251119, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Bekaert v Siltronic
Confidentiality club regime regarding inspection report by expert. (Article 60 UPCA, Article 58 UPCA,  Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure). Confidential information irrelevant to the question of infringement must be redacted. Access to confidential information relating to the issue of infringement and/or the scope of acts of use, to be decided on case-by-case basis 

IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Lina Medical v Tonglu Qianyan
Ex- Parte order for Preservation and inspection of evidence granted (Art. 60 UPCA, R 192,  R. 194 (d),  197, 199 RoP). Applicant has credibly demonstrated that the “disposable morcellator“, exhibited at the MEDICA exhibition in Düsseldorf, makes use of the teaching of the patent in suit . All features set out in claims 1 to 6 of the patent are implemented. With the exception of the labelling, the product which is presented by the Defendant is identical in appearance to the American product examined by the Applicant. The Applicant has demonstrated why the proposed measures are needed to preserve evidence without hearing the Defendant.

IPPT20251117, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Otec v Steros
Unredacted version of the expert’s description following an order for inspection and preservation of evidence disclosed to the applicant. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 196, Rule 194, 199 RoP). Respondent has not asserted confidentiality interests with regard to the information contained in the description provided by the expert. An order for inspection and preservation of evidence must contain a statement that the results of these measures may only be used in the relevant proceedings on the merits (unless the court orders otherwise). 
 

IPPT20251030, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Van Loon v Inverquark 
Ex-parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted. (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 192 ,196 RoP). It is possible that the product "InverJet," as exhibited at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne, makes use of the technical teaching of the patent.  (Art. 60 (1) EPC).  The applicant has referred to photographs showing the external structure of the "InverJet" and used these to explain why it assumes that the features are realized. 

IPPT20250922, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Otec v Steros
Ex parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted. (Art. 60 UPCA, Rule. 194 (d), 196, 197, 199 RoP). Credible demonstration that the patent may be infringed. (Article 60 (1) UPCA). The product, as exhibited at the EMO Hannover trade fair, makes use of the technical teaching of the patent. All features of the patent are realized in the "DLyte PRO500 Automated Cell" product. 

IPPT20250904, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ecovacs Robotics v Roborock
Detailed ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises (Article 60 UPCA, R. 194.2a RoP, R. 196 RoP, R. 197 RoP, R. 199 RoP). Even an imminent infringement in Germany is sufficient to establish the local jurisdiction of the German Local Divisions (Article 32(1)(c) UPCA, Article 33(1)(a) UPCA). In view of the circumstances of the case […] it is possible that the contested embodiments will be exhibited at IFA 2025 and that they will make use of the technical teaching of the patent in suit. The applicant, who is the owner of the patent application and has standing to sue, has provided a comprehensible explanation, based on an expert statement (Exhibit JD 10) and various product documents (Exhibits JD 7 to 8, Exhibits JD 11 to 14), as to why it assumes that all features of the patent application are realised in the contested embodiments. The order was to be issued ex parte pursuant to R. 192.3, 197 RoP. Otherwise, there would be a demonstrable risk that evidence would be destroyed or would no longer be available for other reasons (R. 197.1 Alt. 2 RoP).
 

IPPT20250725, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripal v Palo Alto
No breach of inspection order. The order of the CoA […] can only be construed so as to limit the inspection to the system actually being present at the premises of the order. (Art. 60 (3) UPCA, R. 199 RoP, R. 192.2(b) RoP). Defendant was under no obligation to increase the access rights of a mere sales person working at the premises detailed in the order to a level which would allow him to have access to the encrypted network security solution Claimant wished to monitor in real-time, if such increase of rights of the employee concerned is not necessary to have him carry out his duties required in his particular position as submitted by Defendant.

IPPT20250603, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Centripetal Limited v Palo Alto Networks
Ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises after case is referred back by Court of Appeal (Article 60 UPCA, R. 192 RoP, R. 243 RoP). After referral back by the CoA, the court is bound by the order of the CoA (R. 243.2 RoP) as far as the CoA ruled on the addressed issues and orders as follows accordingly hereinafter. It is referred to the reasoning of the CoA’s order. As the CoA did not decide on the question whether or not the execution of the order - [...] - may only take place after defendant was informed [...], the CFI had discretion to decide under R. 196.3 RoP, whether immediate enforcement nonetheless is proportionate on the instant facts or whether the enforceability has to be put under further conditions. Justified to allow the defendant a limited time of two hours to be able to reach out to a lawyer of his choice to attend the setting up and monitoring as described hereinafter

IPPT20250530, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Genentech v Organon
Ex parte order to preserve evidence (R. 192 RoP) and order for inspection (R. 199 RoP) (Article 60 UPCA), appointment of independent experts, subject to confidentiality circle, time limits procedure on the merits, € 25.000 security and limited use of the outcome of the measures. Standard of proof: "a certain degree of plausibility of the infringement or the threat thereof" [...]. he same certain degree should be considered when assessing the validity of the patent. This “certain degree” is practically translated by the Court as making it “highly likely”. As such, the standard of proof for Applicants is lower compared to infringement actions (on the merits) and preliminary measures actions. Applicants should not already prove infringement, as this would render the order for preservation of evidence/access meaningless. € 25.000 security for combined order to preserve evidence and inspect premises (Article 60(7) UPCA, R. 196 RoP). Although Art. 60(7) UPCA does not seem to allow the court to make the execution of an order for inspection conditional on a security (see § 30), the Applicants' requests are of such a nature that they combine an order to preserve evidence and an order for inspection. 

IPPT20250528, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Nanoval v ALD Vacuum Technologies
Review of ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspection of 3 February 2025 unsuccessful (R. 197.3 RoP). 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.

IPPT20250416, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Bekaert v Siltronic
An order to preserve evidence and conduct an inspection may serve to secure evidence of individual acts of use (Article 60 UPCA, Article 25 UPCA).The list of measures for preserving evidence of R. 196. RoP is not exhaustive (Article 60(2) UPCA). The specific measures required must always be decided in light of the applicant's interest in preserving evidence, taking into account the circumstances of the individual case. Apart from that, the related documents expressly mentioned in R. 196.1 (c) RoP can easily be interpreted as referring to distribution. Evidence of the distributor's use typically includes delivery notes, invoices, etc.

IPPT20250324, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Tiru v Maguin
Review dismissed of ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises (R. 197.4 RoP). No breach of duty to disclose any known material facts (R. 192.3 RoP): Patent holder cannot be required, at the stage of the application for preservation of evidence, to respond in advance to possible attacks on the validity of the patent, without prejudice, at the stage of the substantive proceedings, to discussing and deciding on a possible application for revocation of the patent. No demonstrable risk of destruction of evidence (Article 60.5 UPCA) because of the mere digital format of the data but to ensure the effectiveness of the simultaneous  measures at the site of the manufacturer and that of the operator of the allegedly infringing oven. No lack of urgency (R. 194.2 RoP): a two-month period to prepare the application for preservation of evidence appears reasonable, as the applicant for seizure is required under Article 60.1 UPCA to present reasonably accessible evidence to support its allegations that its patent has been infringed or that infringement is imminent.

IPPT20250303, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Order to preserve evidence rejected
Order to preserve evidence rejected. No sufficient degree of substantiation that that there is a sufficient degree of probability that infringement of the asserted claim combination can be found (Article 60 UPCA, R. 192.2 RoP). Required, if multiple ways are equally open to achieve the technical result, that facts are submitted which suggest that the result is being achieved by using the solution as patented and/or elaborating on alternative solutions and explain why it is rather to be excluded that these solutions are being implemented. These standards are of tantamount relevance in cases like the present one, where the application had been lodged before bringing an action on the merits of the case so that the court cannot refer to the main briefs to inform itself upon the arguments exchanged on infringement (cf. R. 192.2 RoP).

IPPT20250219, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Swarco v Yunex - I
Order to preserve evidence and inspect premises has become devoid of purpose due to Swarco Futurit’s factual assertation being undisputed by Yunex (Article 60 UPCA, R. 360 RoP). The proceedings to secure evidence are a dependent part of the main proceedings. In the subsequent main proceedings, Yunex is precluded from making a first substantiated denial of identity or counter-evidence.

IPPT20250122, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Mammoet v P.T.S.
Ex parte order for preserving evidence at former supplier, non-cooperating after cease-and-desist letter: detailed description, physical seizure, preservation in print or copy of digital media; written report within ten business days from the date of execution of the order, access to the Written Report is initially limited to the representatives of the Defendant only (Article 60.5 UPCA, R. 196 RoP, R. 197 RoP). Lower threshold for preservation of evidence than for provisional injunction (R. 196 RoP, R. 211 RoP).Degree of certainty required for the granting of an application for the preservation of evidence and description (R.190, 196 RoP) is lower than the threshold for the granting of an injunction as a provisional measure (R.211 RoP) as the former is also meant to collect evidence for further actions. Demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed as the capture of data is one of the Applicant’s targets and it is generally accepted that digital data can be easily hidden or erased if previous notice is given of this kind of application, as is also mentioned above. Mammoet’s fear that evidence can easily be removed if the Defendant is informed or heard before the measure, is thus considered justified.

IPPT20241018, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Bekaert v Siltronic
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. 

IPPT20240925, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, DDT v Doytec
Ex parte order to preserve evidence (R. 197 RoP, Article 60(5) UPCA). Demonstrable risk of evidence being no more available once the SMT exhibition is over, for Doytec is based abroad and the technical and commercial documentation relating to C-1012 machine could easily be destroyed or otherwise ceasing to be available. The appointed expert (R. 196.5 RoP) shall lodge a written report, together with a full copy of all the documents acquired as a result of the execution of the measures, immediately and no later than two days after the completion of execution of the measures. The granting of an application for preservation of evidence or inspection of premises does not imply an unconditional order to disclose the evidence to the applicant (Article 60(1) UPCA). Pursuant to Article 60(1) UPCA the order must be subject to the protection of confidential information. Where the evidence may contain confidential information, this entails that the Court must hear the other party before deciding whether and to what extent to disclose the evidence to the applicant. In this context, the Court must give the other party access to the evidence and must provide that party with the opportunity to request the Court to keep certain information confidential and to provide reasons for such confidentiality.

IPPT20240408, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM
No access to written report and any other outcome of the measures to inspect premises and to preserve evidence and revocation of the measures to preserve evidence because applicant did not timely start proceedings on the merits (Article 60(8) UPCA, Rule 198 RoP, Rule 9(4) RoP). Restitution of all evidence gathered through the execution of the revoked measures is to take place from 05.06.2024 on, unless the Court of Appeal decides otherwise (Article 74 UPCA, Rule 223 RoP). It is quite clear that an appeal could not be effective if this Court’s order for the return of the evidence gathered were given immediate effect. Damages claim dismissed (Article 60(9) UPCA, Article 54 UPCA, Rule 198(2) RoP). AWM and Schnell failed to allege, identify, and prove what concrete damage would have been caused by the enforcement of the measures, resulting in the dismissal of the claim, since – as provided for in Art. 54 UPCA – the burden of the proof of facts lies with the party relying on those facts.

IPPT20240301, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Novawell v C-Kore Systems
Ex parte order to perserve evidence (Article 60(5) UPCA, Rule 196 RoP, Rule 197 RoP).Timing: the execution of the measure to preserve evidence (saisie) in accordance with French law includes the service by the bailiff of the "procès-verbal de saisie" at the end of the operations, which is the procedural act that closes the seizure operations and informs the defendant of the content of the notice so it can request a review (Rule 197(3) RoP, Rule 300 RoP). According to Rule 300 RoP for the calculation of UPC periods, the relevant event for the calculation of the 30 days is the date of service of the bailiff's minute. In the present case, the 30-day period runs from 6 December 2023 and expires on 5 January 2024.  Reasonable available evidence of infringement to support order to preserve evidence (article 60(1) UPCA) based on (i) a Novawell commercial brochure displayed at an international exhibition held in Scotland on 23 February 2023; (ii) an extract from Novawell's public website describing its product called "SICOM"; (iii) a warning letter sent by C-Kore to Novawell with said brochure attached as Annex 2, and (iv) Novawell did not contest the content of the document or its origin. The fact that the commercial brochure was collected in an area outside the UPC's jurisdiction is irrelevant; does not affect the evidential value of that brochure, and it is not disputed that Novawell offers the SICOM product from its premises located in France. No reason for the Court to examine the validity of the patent in question at this stage. As C-Kore's patent is in force and there are no pending proceedings challenging its validity, the title is considered valid. For a matter of preserving evidence at an early stage of the proceedings, the Court rightly considered that the applicant had provided sufficient available reasonable evidence of the alleged infringement against Novawell by marketing the SICOM product, a very similar product to the “Cable Monitor”, C-Kore’s product which embodies the patent at issue. Novawell denies the existence of any infringement, arguing that its product "SICOM" does not reproduce all the features of claim 1 of EP 793. Ex parte measures can be based on any of the criteria mentioned in Rule 197 RoP; no conflict with non-exhaustive list of article 60(5) UPCA. Demonstrable risk of evidence otherwise ceasing to be available (Rule 197(1) RoP): the defendant, having been informed of an imminent seizure, could have made certain computer data unavailable or moved its product to a location other than its premises in Montpellier. Preservation of evidence by an expert appointed by the Court and assisted by a bailiff is not in conflict with French national law and in conformity with Rule 196(5) RoP.

IPPT20231114, UPC CFI, LD Paris, C-Kore Systems v Novawell
Ex parte measure granted to preserve evidence, detailed description, physicial seizure of product and technical and promotional documentation an a written report by expert appointed by the Court (Article 58 UPCA, Article 60 UPCA, Rule 196 RoP, Rule 197 RoP)

IPPT20230925, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM

Ex parte order to inspect premises and to preserve evidence; confidentiality (articles 58 and 60 UPCA, Rules 196, 197 and 199 RoP). Urgency: two Girderflex apparatus have allegedly already been sold; at the end of July, another machinery has been offered for sale; AWM will be also present as a confirmed exhibitor at the BIBM Congress in Amsterdam and the commercial offer is still ongoing on AWM’s website. Reasons for ex parte: Data capture is Claimant’s main target and it is generally accepted that digital data can be easily hidden or erased if defendants are given previous notice of this kind of application. Experts are included in the list of patent experts who are used to cooperate with the national Courts, so that the choice guarantees expertise, independence and impartiality, as required by rule 196.5 RoP. Confidentiality: In accordance with art. 58 UPCA, rule 196.1 (d) and rule 199.1 RoP, the Court orders that the access to any information and document gathered by the experts in charge of carrying out the measure is prohibited, so to ensure effective protection of confidential information. Whether the Defendants should lodge a request for the review of this order according to rule 197.3 RoP, they are expressly invited to comment on any confidentiality interests that they might have after the written expert Report has been submitted by the experts appointed to carry out this order. Security: Pursuant to rule 196.3 and 196.6 RoP, the Court orders PMA to provide adequate security - also as a condition to the enforceability of this order - for the legal costs and other expenses and compensation for any injury incurred or likely to be incurred by the Defendants, by deposit of the amount of Euro 50.000, equal to 2,5% of the value of the case of Euro 2.000.000.

IPPT20230921, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, OrthoApnea

Ex parte order to preserve evidence at symposium (article 60 UPCA). Urgency and irreparable because evidence may soon no longer be available in the territory. Ex parte (Rule 197(1) RoP): The applicant has sufficiently explained that irreparable damage may be caused to if the defendant is heard, because it is feared that in that case the infringing products will no longer be available at the symposium (Rule 192(3) RoP). No reason for a confidentiality regime as no seizure of confidential materials is sought and seizure will be made of materials publicly available at a symposium. No legal basis for order that the defendant has to cooperate. Counsel and a technical adviser of applicant allowed to be present.

IPPT20230614, UPC CFI LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Ex parte order to preserve evidence at a trade fair (Article 60 UPCA, R. 192 RoP, R. 194 RoP). Prima facie case. For an order preserving evidence, only indicia of infringement are required to justify preservation of evidence, Photos, technical opinion, and video evidence suggest reproduction of patented features (i.e. infringement). Formal requirements for evidence preservation (R. 192 RoP). Claimant must provide a clear identification of measures and location. In this request the evidence targeted at the defendant’s trade fair stand. Claimant must establish the necessity of measures established. This is linked with establishing likelihood of infringement. Urgency. The allegedly infringing activity was ongoing at the trade fair and was about to end. This causes extreme urgency. A risk of loss of evidence is established as it could disappear after the event, especially given the defendant’s foreign location. Consequently, it is not necessary to hear the other party. Security (R. 196.6 RoP): No prior guarantee imposed due to the urgency and non-intrusive nature of the measure.

IPPT20230613, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Himson II
Ex parte order to preserve evidence at trade fair (Article 60 UPCA, Rule 192 RoP). Extreme urgency exists considering that the international trade fair where the offending conduct is taking place started on 8.6.2023 and ends, tomorrow, on 14 June 2023. The prerequisites of Articles 197(1) RoP and 60(5) UPCA for the ex parte granting of the measure are met, since (a) time constraints do not allow the parties to be convened before the end of the trade fair tomorrow; (b) there is a risk that the evidence will no longer be accessible to the claimant once the exhibition is over, since the defendant is based abroad and the documents indicated are easy to conceal and/or destroy. Payment of fees (Rule 192(5) RoP, Rule 371(1) RoP: The Tribunal notes that pursuant to Section 371(3) RoP, in cases of urgency, when advance payment is not possible, the applicant's counsel must pay the fixed contribution within the time limit set by the Tribunal: in light of this limitation, the applicant must be ordered to pay this contribution by 15 June 2023.