Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 12 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 17 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 12 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_1696/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division, sitting as a full panel, upheld the judge-rapporteur’s order of 21 August 2026 on the disclosure of confidential information concerning the Pilot 1 plant. The dispute between Topsoe and SYPOX and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts concerns EP 3 802 413 B1, and the request for review was filed by SYPOX.

Question

Did the disclosure of confidential information relating to the Pilot 1 plant go beyond the scope of the original inspection order?

Decision

On a request for review under Rule 333 RoP, the panel held that the disclosure fell within the scope of the original inspection order and that there was no reason to amend the order under review, which it upheld. It set aside for separate treatment the request for a stay, the SME status for the purposes of court fees and the protection of the confidentiality of the material to be disclosed.

Key points for practice

• Where the disputed disclosure falls within the scope of the original inspection order, a review under Rule 333 RoP is not enough to call it into question.
• Stay, court fees and confidentiality are dealt with separately, which suggests raising them in stand-alone applications rather than in support of the review.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 333 RoP

Related decisions

• Topsoe v SYPOX, 26 August 2026, an earlier order in the same proceedings.
• Topsoe v SYPOX, 4 May 2026, an earlier stage of the same proceedings.
• Topsoe v SYPOX, 25 November 2025, the first decision in the database in the same proceedings.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 17 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.