Key takeaways
Access of a UPC Representative to the Case Management System (CMS) is a precondition for the respondent to comment on confidentiality issues prior to the disclosure of preserved evidence to the applicant
The Court ruled that it can only give the Respondents an opportunity to comment on confidentiality issues with respect to preserved evidence if the Respondents can be reached by the Court via the CMS. The Court stated that this is not the case if the Respondents have received a CMS access code but no UPC Representative has used it. According to the Court, without CMS access, it would only be possible to grant the opportunity to comment by way of paper service of the documents, which would, however, be associated with undue effort and was thus considered unacceptable by the Court.
A respondent’s failure to appoint an UPC Representative does not prevent the unredacted disclosure of persevered evidence to the applicant
The Court stated that the Respondents knew the CMS access code and the Court’s intended procedure for providing an opportunity to comment on confidentiality issues. Against this background, the Court held that the Respondents had sufficient time to forward the access code to a UPC Representative. Their failure to do so may not work to the Applicant’s disadvantage.
Division
Local Division Duesseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_2738/2026
UPC_CFI_2739/2026
Type of proceedings
Application for inspection and preservation of evidence
Parties
Applicant: Veridium IP Limited
Respondents: T3K-Forensics GmbH (registered seat in Vienna), T3K-Forensics GmbH (registered seat in Munich)
Patent(s)
EP 3 254 232
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 60 UPCA, Rule 194(d) RoP, Rule 196 RoP, Rule 197 RoP, Rule 199 RoP
