Mammoet Holding B.V. v. P.T.S. Machinery B.V.

ORD_3693/2025

Mammoet Holding B.V. successfully obtained a procedural order from the UPC Court of First Instance to preserve evidence against P.T.S. Machinery B.V. The case revolves around EP4171996, a patent covering modular trailer systems and jack cradles used for heavy lifting. Mammoet alleged that PTS was producing and supplying an infringing 'Mechanical Construction' component. The court granted the application, compelling PTS to provide access to its premises and digital data under strict conditions.

Jurisdiction
European UPC
Court
The Hague (NL) Local Division
Case Number
ORD_3693/2025
Judge(s)
COMPOSITION OF PANEL Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge; Not provided The presiding judge designated the decision

What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi

The Court of First Instance exercised exclusive jurisdiction over the application concerning the preservation of evidence related to a European Patent with Unitary Effect. The order mandates that the defendant must facilitate the securing of evidence, including granting physical and digital access, under penalty of a significant hourly fine if non-compliant.

Practitioner Note

This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before The Hague (NL) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.

Related Cases

patentApp_17782/2025

Fujifilm CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH

This UPC decision addressed a procedural request concerning the composition of the confidentiality club in an ongoing infringement action involving Fujifilm and Kodak. The court ruled that while the claimant could not fully expand its access authorizations, it was granted permission to replace certain members with others whose involvement did not pose an undue risk to the defendants' confidential information. This highlights the court's careful balancing act when managing procedural aspects of sensitive IP litigation.

patentApp_1872/2025

Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.vsAiko Energy Germany GmbH, Solarlab Aiko Europe GmbH, Memodo GmbH, Aiko Energy Netherlands B.V., Libra Energy B.V., VDH Solar Groothandel B.V., PowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico

In a procedural order concerning confidential information in an infringement and revocation action, the Düsseldorf Local Division addressed access rights to sensitive financial data. The Court clarified that parties must provide specific, concrete reasons when objecting to or requesting access to confidential information. It ultimately granted access to certain independent consultants involved in patent matters while rejecting a request for another party, emphasizing the strict adherence required under confidentiality rules.

patentApp_33240/2025

Lenovo (Singapore) Pte. Ltd.vsASUSTek Computer Inc., ASUS Computer GmbH, ASUSTEK (UK) LIMITED

This interim order in the UPC case involving Lenovo and ASUS focuses heavily on procedural matters related to a FRAND objection concerning EP patent 3 682 587. The court granted extensions for both parties to submit their arguments, allowing them to incorporate materials from parallel proceedings into the main litigation. Crucially, the decision confirmed future dates for interim hearings and oral arguments, keeping the infringement case active but focused on procedural progress.

patentUPC_CFI_716/2024

Polidoro S.p.a.vsBekaert Combustion Technology B.V.

Polidoro S.p.a. successfully sued Bekaert Combustion Technology for infringing its patent covering a specific type of premixed burner used in condensation boilers. The UPC Local Division Mannheim found infringement, leading to the granting of cease and desist orders against the Defendants across several UPCA member states. Although the initial claims were successful, the court also dismissed the counterclaim filed by the Defendants seeking revocation of the patent. This case highlights the dual nature of UPC proceedings, where infringement can be established while a revocation defense is simultaneously rejected.

patentApp_35040/2025

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)

This procedural order in the UPC case involving KEEEX SAS against major tech players like Adobe and OpenAI addresses critical timing issues. The court aligned all defendants' deadlines to ensure fair administration of justice, recognizing the complexity and high stakes of the infringement action. Furthermore, it granted an exceptional four-week extension for filing defenses, allowing parties adequate time to address the extensive claims and technical details.

Arctic Invent — IP Strategy

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.

Talk to our patent team →

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.

Strategy Consult

Facing a similar patent matter?

Arctic's litigation team uses precedent data like this to build winning arguments.

Get a Strategy Call