Executive Summary
This procedural order in the UPC case involving N.J DIFFUSION SARL and GISELA MAYER GmbH addressed a request for an on-site visual inspection of disputed wigs. Although the Court found that the requested measure was not strictly an 'experiment' under the Rules of Procedure, it ultimately rejected the request as unnecessary because detailed photographic evidence had already been submitted by the claimant. The case will proceed with the conference of directions held online.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The Court ruled that while NJ DIFFUSION's request for an on-site visual examination and photography did not strictly fit the definition of 'experiment' under Rule 201 EPC, it was a simple observation. However, ultimately, the Court found this measure unnecessary because detailed photographs of the wigs were already provided in the written pleadings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in N.J DIFFUSION SARL vs GISELA MAYER GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Roche Diabetes Care GmbHvsTandem Diabetes Care, Inc.
In this cost determination case, the UPC Central Division addressed a request by Roche Diabetes Care GmbH for reimbursement of legal costs against Tandem Diabetes Care. The court firmly rejected the respondents' attempt to stay the proceedings based merely on a pending appeal on the merits, reinforcing the principle that successful parties should not be unduly delayed in receiving cost awards. After reviewing and adjusting various expense claims, including travel costs, the Court ultimately granted the requested compensation of EUR 117,741.62.
Snowpixie Co., Ltd.vsGolf Tech Golfartikel Vertriebs GmbH
In this procedural order from the Munich Local Division, the court granted a short extension of deadlines requested by the claimant's counsel due to documented health issues. The case involves both infringement and invalidity proceedings concerning EP 3 030 471. This decision highlights the UPC's willingness to grant extensions when credible medical reasons are presented, while also imposing strict conditions for proving those claims.
10x Genomics, Inc.vsVizgen, Inc.
This UPC preliminary procedure case involved a dispute over evidence production between 10x Genomics and Vizgen concerning the EP patent EP4108782. The defendant, Vizgen, sought various documents from both claimants to support its contractual and competition law defenses. The court partially granted the request, compelling the claimants to produce a specific license agreement related to FISSEQ technology. This decision highlights the interplay between UPC evidence rules and limitations imposed by parallel US litigation protective orders.
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KGvsLight Guide Optics Germany GmbH; S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International
Bioletic Holding GmbH & Co. KG sought provisional measures against Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, alleging that their product infringed on EP 3 685 783 B1 related to laser fibers for vein treatment. The Düsseldorf Local Division ultimately denied the request for an injunction. The court found that the claimant did not meet the necessary threshold of demonstrating exceptional harm or irreparable damage required for provisional relief, despite the long-standing competition.
Edwards Lifesciences CorporationvsMeril Life Sciences Private Ltd.; Meril GmbH; Meril Italy S.r.l.
In this procedural order, Edwards Lifesciences Corporation sought an extension of time to file its rejoinder in a revocation action concerning EP 4 151 181. The Court ultimately denied the request, emphasizing that while efficiency is important, it cannot override the fundamental principle of fair trial. This decision reinforces the UPC's cautious approach to granting procedural extensions, ensuring balance and fairness between parties.
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.