LD Duesseldorf, December 19, 2025, Order, UPC_CFI_834/2025

The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s booth at the MEDICA trade fair. The defendant was served with the order and provided with an access code to the CMS. The order stipulated that the defendant would have the opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests after the court-appointed expert submitted their detailed description. The expert submitted the description, but the defendant had not appointed a representative or used the CMS access code. At this point in time, the defendant has not made any other submissions either. The court had no way to provide the report to the defendant via the CMS to hear their comments on confidentiality. The court decided to disclose the unredacted expert report directly to the applicant. It ruled that serving the documents outside the CMS (e.g., in paper form with translations) would cause unreasonable delays and undermine the applicant’s interest in effective enforcement.

The court placed the responsibility squarely on the defendant. A party that receives a CMS access code and is notified of future procedural steps is obligated to appoint a representative in a timely manner. Failing to do so means forfeiting the opportunity to be heard on subsequent matters like confidentiality, as procedural efficiency and the applicant’s rights will take precedence.1