LD Paris, March 24, 2025, evidence preservation measures, UPC_CFI_813/2024

The applicant of the request for evidence preservation has the duty, under Article 60.1 UPCA, to present reasonably available evidence to support the claim that its patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed. A period of two months (knowledge in October 2024; request in December 2024) for compiling the facts and evidence in the support of a request for the preservation of evidence is reasonable in the present case.

The applicant of the request for evidence preservation submitted evidence of the imminent start-up of the furnace, and it was obvious that the start-up would have prevented or made extremely difficult the requested seizure, which essentially concerns the interior of the furnace, to which the most important features of the patent-in-suit refer. In addition, the search for technical documentation at the manufacturer’s site (present seizure) was linked to that of the furnace seizure at the operator’s site (VALINEA, ORD_13139/2025). Ensuring the effectiveness of the evidence preservation measures justified the simultaneous execution of those measures at the manufacturer’s site and at operator’s site.

The principle of efficiency, which justified an ex parte measure, was applied while also respecting the principles of justice, fairness and proportionality by strictly limiting the scope of the search for evidence to the sole characterization of the infringement and by rejecting all requests relating to the research of extent of the infringement, as well as by setting up upstream a circle of confidentiality as restricted as possible.