Short Summary
Topsoe A/S, holder of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1 relating to hydrogen production by steam methane reforming, applied for an order of inspection and evidence preservation against SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf. The applicant suspected that SYPOX's electrically heated biogas-to-hydrogen plants (SYPOX H-200 and SYPOX H-400) infringed its patent. The court granted the application, ordering the respondents to grant the bailiff and expert unrestricted access to the allegedly infringing hydrogen production plants and related construction and operational documents.
Detailed Summary
This case concerns an application by Topsoe A/S, a Danish company, for an order of inspection and evidence preservation under Art. 60 EPGÜ and Rules 194(d), 196, 197, 199 of the Rules of Procedure before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court (case UPC_CFI_1696/2025), issued on November 25, 2025.
Topsoe is the proprietor of European Patent EP 3 802 413 B1, titled 'HYDROGEN PRODUCTION BY STEAM METHANE REFORMING.' The patent was filed on May 15, 2019, claiming priorities from Danish patent application PA201800249 and European application EP 18175366 (both dated May 31, 2018) and Danish application PA201800636 (dated September 25, 2018). The patent was granted and published on July 5, 2023, and is in force in Germany, Finland, France, Great Britain, Italy, Iceland, Lithuania, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, and Spain. No opposition was filed against the patent. Topsoe withdrew its previously declared opt-out from the jurisdiction of the Unified Patent Court on November 21, 2025.
The patent's independent claim 1 relates to a hydrogen plant comprising a reforming reactor system with a first catalyst bed containing electrically conductive and catalytically active material, a pressure shell, heat insulation, and conductors connected to an external electrical power supply capable of heating the catalyst bed to at least 500°C. The pressure shell has a design pressure of between 5 and 200 bar. The plant also includes a water gas shift unit and a gas separation unit. Independent claim 22 covers the corresponding process for producing hydrogen.
The first respondent, SYPOX GmbH, is a company founded in 2021 in Freising, Germany, as a spin-off of the Technical University of Munich, specializing in the electrification of the chemical industry. The second respondent, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH, is a biogas producer based in Dollnstein, Germany. Topsoe alleged that SYPOX offers electrically heated plants for converting biogas to hydrogen under the designations SYPOX H-200 and SYPOX H-400, which it suspected of infringing the patent in suit.
On November 21, 2025, Topsoe filed the application for inspection and evidence preservation at the premises of both respondents in preparation for a main infringement action. The court found the application justified and granted the order, directing the respondents to grant the bailiff and appointed expert unrestricted access to the electrically heated hydrogen production plants (typically designated SYPOX H-200 or SYPOX H-400) and to all construction and operational documents, whether in physical or digital form. The order required the respondents to remove any access barriers, including providing passwords for electronic devices, and to put the hydrogen production plant into operation. The respondents were also ordered to instruct their managing directors and employees to comply with the bailiff's and expert's requests.
The court appointed an independent expert to prepare a detailed written description of the inspected facilities and documents, with the expert required to take an oath. The order included provisions for the protection of confidential information, with the expert required to keep all information strictly confidential. The respondents were ordered to bear the costs of the inspection, while Topsoe was required to provide an appropriate advance payment to the expert before the inspection begins. The measures were ordered to be lifted if Topsoe did not file a main action within 31 calendar days or 20 working days (whichever is longer) after the detailed description was disclosed to it. The order is immediately enforceable. The respondents may apply for review within 30 days after execution of the measures, and the adversely affected party may appeal within 15 days of service.
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 Topsoe A/S vs SYPOX GmbH & Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. and Interdigital CE Patent Holdings SASvsThe Walt Disney Company and Others
The Local Chamber Mannheim issued an order addressing the respondents' refusal to acknowledge service of an Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction (AASI) previously granted on May 27, 2025. The court found that the respondents' legal representatives could not limit their power of attorney to evade service while simultaneously making substantive representations in the proceedings. The court ordered service by court bailiff, directed the representatives to acknowledge receipt and register in the CMS within two weeks, and threatened a coercive fine of €100,000 for non-compliance.
Samsung Bioepis NL B.V.vsAlexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
This case concerns a cost decision for appeal proceedings before the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Hamburg, relating to European Patent EP 3 167 888 B1. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, the patent proprietor, had its application for provisional measures against Samsung Bioepis's product Epysqli® dismissed at first instance and on appeal, with costs ordered against it. Samsung Bioepis sought reimbursement of its appeal costs, and the court partially granted the application, finding that costs for two legal representatives and four patent attorneys were largely reasonable, but disallowing costs for two English solicitors and certain travel expenses.
InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SASvsThe Walt Disney Company et al.
Procedural order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning European Patent No. 2 080 349 in a patent infringement action brought by InterDigital CE Patent Holdings, SAS against multiple Disney entities. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 37.2 RoP to decide the bifurcation question early, ordering that both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation be heard jointly, with the consent of the parties.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLCvsInfoblox Inc., Infoblox Germany GmbH, and Nomios Germany GmbH
The defendants in a UPC infringement action requested alignment of the deadline for filing their Statements of Defence, which had diverged by 20 days due to delayed service on the U.S. defendant. The claimant objected, citing the approaching expiry of the patent-in-suit in March 2027. The Local Division Hamburg granted the request, aligning all defendants' deadlines to 11 June 2026, holding that the claimant bore the risk of the deviating service dates because it delayed arranging payment for service in the U.S.
Versah LLCvsHaeNaem Co., Ltd., Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH, and Adin Dental Implant Systems Ltd.
Versah LLC filed a patent infringement action before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 402 420 B1 against three defendants. Before the written procedure was concluded, the plaintiff partially withdrew the action against Defendant 2 (Adin Dental Implant Systems GmbH) following an out-of-court settlement. The court allowed the partial withdrawal, declared the proceedings against Defendant 2 terminated, and ruled on costs in accordance with the parties' agreement.
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.