LD Düsseldorf, 3 July 2026, Procedural Orders, UPC_CFI_604/2026 | UPC_CFI_2108/2026

The Court dismissed Claimant’s request for the production of documents under R. 190 RoP as Claimant failed to identify which facts it seeks to prove, did not identify by which means of evidence and did not explain for what purpose, i.e. the necessity of such evidence.

Thus, Claimant did not met the following five cumulative conditions:

1. There is a fact that is relevant to the substantiation of the claim and the fact requires
   proof/evidence by the requesting party.

2. The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in
   support of its claims;
3. The evidence to which access is requested must be “specified” and lie in control of
   the other party;
4. The other party’s confidential information must be protected;
5. Any order to produce evidence must satisfy the requirements of proportionality,
   equity, and fairness. One of the elements to be taken into consideration when
   assessing “proportionality” is the stage of the proceedings when the request to
   produce evidence is introduced.

Although there is no timeframe for submitting a R. 190 RoP request, such a request could be dismissed if the Court deems it to be too early in the proceedings. The Court refused Claimant’s R. 190 RoP request as it was filed before Defendant’s Statement of Defense in which Defendant provided substantiated defence arguments against Claimant’s infringement allegations, with reference to exhibits containing information on the method for localization used by the attacked embodiments, to what method the R. 190 RoP-request of Claimant refers. Thus, it was unclear whether and to what extent Claimant would (and could) dispute these defence arguments and which facts (and with what evidence) still need to be proven.

The Defendant requested the dismissal of expert reports submitted by Claimant arguing that these reports are not impartial, independent or objective as required by R.181 RoP in conjunction with R. 175.2 RoP. However, the Court rejected Defendant’s requests and held that Defendant’s objections boil down to the question which weight can be attached to the findings in these reports, the objections are not merely procedural in nature but require a substantive assessment of the reports and the findings therein.

As Claimant received only a redacted version of the Stetement of Defence and the counterclaim for revocation, the court granted an extension for the number of days between access to the redcated and the unredacted version, but declined to pre-emptively extend Defendant’s corresponding deadlines, as R. 29(d) RoP already provides a two-month period running from service of Claimant’s briefs.