Case Law
Rule 192: Application for preserving evidence

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 24/03/2025, TIRU v. VALINEA ENERGIE (Case/ Registry number: 66573/2024, ORD_13139/2025)
Example of decision on a rejection of patent validity challenge in the case of an ex parte measure to preserve evidence: "22. Without it being necessary to rule on whether the claimant had actual knowledge of all the technical documents relating to the old furnace, the Court notes that, as the representative of TIRU rightly pointed out at the hearing, the judge hearing the application for seizure is not the judge who rules on validity. Thus, the patent holder cannot be required, at the stage of the application for preservation of evidence, to respond in advance to possible attacks on the validity of the patent, without prejudice, at the stage of the substantive debate, to discussing and deciding on a possible application for revocation of the patent.
23. In the present case, none of the information and details provided by TIRU in its application is disputed, justifying that it is the owner of patent EP’578, that no opposition proceedings were pending before the EPO or that no court had been seized of a challenge to the validity of that patent, in particular on the grounds of lack of novelty, on the date of the request for preservation of evidence."

Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division, Order dated 08/04/2024, PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG v. AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A. ORD_9710/2024
Example of decision on applications for preserving evidence and for an order for inspection :“The written report and any other outcome of the measures to inspect premises and to preserve evidence may only be used in the proceedings on the merits, in accordance with Rules 196.2 and 199 RoP. This means that access to the contents of the reports is solely for their use in the subsequent main proceedings, against the same parties.
Therefore, there is no possibility of granting PMA access to the report, as the Applicant irretrievably failed to comply with the time limit set out in Art. 60 UPCA and Rule 198.1 RoP. The request for access is inadmissible and must be dismissed, as the Applicant cannot use its contents in the only permissible lawful manner, namely in an action on the merits against AWM and Schnell.”

Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division, Order dated 21/09/2023, Jozef Frans Nelissen v OrthoApnea S.L. (Case number UPC_CFI_329/2023, ORD_575902/2023)
Example of decision allowing provisional protective measures