Short Summary
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order concerning an application for preservation of evidence and inspection under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, and 199 RoP regarding European patent EP 2 593 025 B1. The court ordered disclosure of the unredacted expert description to the Applicant because the Defendant, despite receiving a CMS access code at the time of service on 18 November 2025, never logged into the CMS through a UPC representative, thereby forfeiting its opportunity to comment on confidentiality interests.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an application for preservation of evidence and inspection filed by LiNA Medical AG (Applicant) against Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd. (Defendant) before the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, relating to European patent EP 2 593 025 B1.
On 17 November 2025, the Applicant filed an application for preservation of evidence and inspection prior to proceedings on the merits. The following day, 18 November 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division issued a corresponding order, and the measures were executed at the Defendant's exhibition booth at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, which ran from 17 to 20 November 2025. Service of the order, including a CMS access code, was carried out at the trade fair on 19 November 2025.
The original order provided that the Defendant would be given the opportunity to comment on any confidentiality interests after the expert submitted the detailed description, and only then would the Court decide whether and to what extent the description should be disclosed to the Applicant. On 15 December 2025, the expert delivered its detailed description, including exhibits and invoice. However, to the date of the present order, no representative of the Defendant had logged into the CMS.
The core legal issue was whether the Court could disclose the detailed description to the Applicant despite the Defendant never having accessed the CMS. The Court reasoned that it could only provide the Defendant with an opportunity to comment via the CMS. If no UPC representative had logged in, the Court would have to serve the documents in paper form, potentially requiring translation, which would impose unreasonable effort and delays incompatible with the Applicant's interests in preserving evidence and effectively enforcing its patent.
The Court held that the Defendant had been aware of the CMS access code and the Court's intention to provide an opportunity to comment since 18 November 2025, giving it sufficient time to appoint a UPC representative. The Defendant's decision not to do so was its own choice and could not disadvantage the Applicant. The Court therefore found no effective way to hear the Defendant's views on confidentiality interests and ordered disclosure of the unredacted detailed description.
The final order, issued on 19 December 2025 by Presiding Judge Thomas, directed that: (I) the unredacted detailed description, including annexes, be disclosed to the Applicant's legal representatives and the Applicant itself; (II) the confidentiality order from 18 November 2025 be lifted with regard to the expert's description in relation to the Applicant; (III) the measures would be revoked if the Applicant did not bring main proceedings within 31 calendar days or 20 working days (whichever is longer) after disclosure; (IV) the detailed description may only be used in the main proceedings; and (V) any objections to the expert's invoice dated 12 December 2025 must be raised by 9 January 2026.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in LiNA Medical AG vs Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.vsASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, and ASUSTEK (UK) Limited
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent No. 3 682 587. Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd. requested an extension of the deadline to respond to the defendants' submission of June 13, 2025, until July 9, 2025, citing technical unavailability of the UPC CMS filing system from July 3 to July 8, 2025. The court rejected the request, holding that the temporary CMS shutdown is already addressed by the automatic extension of deadlines under Rule 301.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Promosome LLCvsBioNTech SE et al.
In a patent infringement action concerning European patent EP 2 401 365 before the Local Division Munich, the Defendants (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) requested under Rule 190 RoP that the Claimant Promosome LLC produce the detailed materials, methods, and raw data underlying an expert report submitted in the proceedings. The Court rejected the request as inadmissible or, in any event, unfounded, finding that the Defendants had not yet disputed infringement, had not presented reasonably available evidence in support of their defences, and had failed to sufficiently specify the evidence requested and the facts they sought to prove.
KEEEX SASvsAdobe Systems Software Ireland Limited, Adobe Inc., Open AI L.P, Open AI Opco LLC, Open AI Ireland Ltd, TruePic Inc., Joint Development Foundation Projects LLC, Coalition for Content Provenance and Authenticity (C2PA)
KEEEX SAS filed a patent infringement action before the Local Division Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 2 949 070 against multiple defendants including Adobe, OpenAI entities, TruePic, JDFP, and C2PA. The defendants raised preliminary objections challenging the international jurisdiction of the UPC and, in the case of TruePic, the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division. The court rejected all preliminary objections, finding that the claimant had sufficiently established the availability of the disputed digital tools on French territory and that UPC jurisdiction extended to non-UPC member states based on the ECJ's BSH ruling.
F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG & Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsA.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l. & Others
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court granted provisional measures in favor of F. Hoffmann-La Roche AG and Roche Diabetes Care GmbH against A.Menarini Diagnostics S.r.l., BERLIN-CHEMIE AG, and A.Menarini Diagnostics France SASU for infringement of European Patent EP 1 962 668 B1, which protects an implantable sandwich sensor for determining analyte concentration. The dispute concerned the CGM system 'GlucoMen iCan o3' manufactured in China by Changsha Sinocare Inc. and distributed in Europe by the Menarini defendants. The court issued an injunction, ordered delivery up of infringing products, information disclosure, and cost reimbursement.
Meril Italy S.r.l.vsRespondent 1 and SWAT Medical AB
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court set aside an order of the Central Division Paris that had granted a member of the public access to written pleadings and evidence in a revocation action concerning EP 3 646 825. The Court of Appeal held that access under R. 262.1(b) RoP should not be granted to members of the public who are not represented by an authorised representative, and dismissed the underlying application. The Court also rejected Meril Italy's request for compensation of costs.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.