Rule 199 – Order for inspection

1. The Court may, on a reasoned request by a party, order an inspection of products, devices, methods, premises or local situations in situ. For the protection of confidential information the Court may order that any of the above be disclosed only to certain named persons and subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure in accordance with Article 58 of the Agreement.

2. Rules 192 to 198 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Relation with Agreement: Article 60

Case Law

Court of Appeal

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).  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

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.

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.

IPPT20251118, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Lina v Schultz

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, Komax v Jiangsu
Ex – parte order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted for the respondent’s exhibition booth at an upcoming trade fair, pending validity proceedings.  (Rule 192, Rule 194, Rule 197, 199 RoP). The “BZW3005” machine, which is expected to be exhibited at “Productronica” in Munich, may make use of the technical teaching of of the patent
 

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). 
 

IPPT20251112, UPC CFI, LD Brussels, Organon v Genentech
Ex parte orders to preserve evidence and for inspection confirmed (R 197.3 RoP. R. 199 RoP). A double assessment determines the scope of review proceedings. First, the Court should assess whether it has “rightly” decided to issue the “ex parte” Order. The Court should then assess whether the Orders are to be confirmed, modified or revoked. Facts and evidence to be taken into consideration include all facts and evidence  presented to the Court by the parties. (Rule 194.3(b) RoP). For both assessments the Court should place itself on the date of issuance of the Orders. The scope of the review assessment does not pertain to the actual execution of the Orders and/or the outcome of such execution or any information gathered during such execution. As such, the general purpose of an order to preserve evidence/for inspection is to: a) anable an applicant who has "presented reasonably available evidence to support the claim" to access additional information that is not publicly available to prove the infringement and the acts constituting infringement, and b) If granted, based on the preserved information, enable the applicant to evaluate the reliable prospects of success in initiating infringement proceedings. “About to be infringed” in Art. 60 UPCA does not have the same meaning as “urgency” (in  R. 194(2) RoP) or “unreasonable delay” in R. 211.4 RoP: must be a plausible a risk of infringement and it must be apparent that it will occur in the future. According to Art. 60(5) UPCA measures shall be ordered ex parte, where delay is likely to cause irreparable harm, or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed. “Ugency” is only one of the elements that the Court should consider when exercising discretionary powers and, therefore, cannot be considered a compulsory precondition for granting the requested measures “ex parte”.

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. The application is urgent (R. 194. 2 b), c), 197 R.P.). There exists a serious risk that the product will be removed from the exhibition grounds at short notice. Due to special market conditions, it would be almost impossible for the applicant to obtain evidence of the infringement of the of the patent. Expert appointed to carry out the measures with the assistance of a bailiff. (Rule 196.4, .5 RoP). An order of security would unreasonably delay the preservation of evidence and inspection, considering the short duration of the trade show. 

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.

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. The order to preserve evidence and inspect premises  allows the execution at the premises of ORGANON NL and ORGANON BE regardless of whether third parties own any material (including servers) to be found at their premises. 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. 

IPPT20250326, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Otec v Steros
Ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspection at trade fair in Cologne (R. 192 RoP, R. 199 RoP). 

IPPT20241223, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Tiru v Maguin (and Valinea)
Ex parte order to preserve evidence and inspect premises subject to disclosure terms and subject to the providing of security by applicant (R. 196 RoP, R. 199 RoP)

IPPT20241018, UPC CFI, LD Dusseldorf, Bekaert v Siltronic
Order for inspection and preservation of evidence granted  (Article 60 UPCA , Rule. 192 , 199 RoP) . 

IPPT20240606, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Interim conference (Rule 104 RoP). Access granted to written report and any other results of the measures of inspection of the premises and preservation of evidence which can only be used in the proceedings on the  merits (Rule 196.2 and 199 RoP). 

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). Request for preservation of evidence (“saisie”) (Rule 192 RoP) and request for inspection ("descente sur les lieux") (Rule 199 RoP) are two different and distinct procedures, each with a different purpose, the first being governed by Rules R. 192 to R. 198 RoP, in order to collect and seize evidence by detailed description or physically, and the second by Rule R. 199, in order to inspect products, devices, methods, premises or local situations in situ ("descente sur les lieux"). This means that there is no need to combine the two measures, even though the first obviously requires the right to enter a private place.  In the present case, the Applicant clearly states that it is requesting a seizure to be carried out at Novawell's premises, and the order expressly instructs the expert to enter the defendant's premises at the appropriate address. 

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.