C-KORE SYSTEMS v NOVAWELL (CFI, 1 March 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 1 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_397/2023, order no. 9825), the full panel of the Paris Local Division (C. Lignières, presiding and judge-rapporteur, C. Gillet and A. Zana) dismissed in its entirety Novawell’s application for review of the ex parte order for preserving evidence issued on 14 November 2023 in favour of C-Kore Systems Limited, proprietor of EP 2 265 793.

The order matters for French saisie practice: it starts the review period from service of the bailiff’s report, accepts that any of the Rule 197.1 RoP grounds can justify an ex parte measure, and holds that a saisie carried out by a court-appointed expert assisted by a bailiff is compatible with Article L. 615-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code.

Facts and procedure

C-Kore Systems filed its application for a saisie on 2 November 2023, the order of 14 November 2023 instructed a court-appointed expert, assisted by a bailiff, to make a detailed description and physical seizure of the SICOM product and documents, and to obtain disclosure of digital media. The saisie took place on 5 December 2023 at Novawell’s premises in Montpellier and the expert filed a report on 14 December 2023. Novawell applied for review on 5 January 2024, the hearing took place on 15 February 2024. Novawell sought revocation of the order, challenging the evidence, the conditions for an ex parte measure, the validity of the patent and the compliance of the set-up with French law.

The applicable law

Preservation of evidence is governed by Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 198 RoP: Rule 197.3 gives the defendant 30 days from execution to request a review, Rule 197.1 sets out when the measure may be ordered ex parte and Rule 196.5 allows a bailiff to assist where national law permits.

Question

Was the review application admissible, and should the ex parte saisie order be revoked in light of the available evidence, the conditions for an ex parte measure, the distinction between saisie and inspection and French saisie-contrefaçon law?

Decision

On admissibility, the division held that the ‘measures’ include service of the bailiff’s report at the close of operations, relying on Article R. 615-2.1 of the French Intellectual Property Code. The 30-day period therefore ran from the bailiff’s notice of 6 December 2023, and the application filed on 5 January 2024 was admissible, with no need to rule on the extension.

On the merits, Novawell’s brochure shown at an exhibition in Scotland and the extract from its website were reasonably available evidence, which Novawell had not disputed when replying to the warning letter. That the brochure was collected outside UPC territory is irrelevant. Awareness of a competitor active since 2017 is not knowledge of an infringement in 2023, so the candour and urgency objections failed. As the list in Art. 60(5) UPCA is not exhaustive, any Rule 197.1 ground can support an ex parte order. Once warned, Novawell could have made data unavailable or moved the product. The patent is in force with no opposition or revocation proceedings pending, so it is treated as valid at this stage.

Saisie (Rules 192 to 198) and inspection (Rule 199) are separate procedures that need not be combined. Finally, referring to Article 55 of the French Constitution, the division held that Article L. 615-5 aims to prevent a partisan expert appointed by the applicant from conducting the saisie. An independent court-appointed expert assisted by a bailiff complies with that provision, with Rule 196.5 and with French public policy. No preliminary reference to the Court of Justice was needed.

Key points for practice

• The Rule 197.3 period runs from service of the bailiff’s report, not from the day of the operations.
• Any Rule 197.1 ground, including the risk that evidence may no longer be available, can justify an ex parte saisie. Urgency is assessed from knowledge of the infringement, not of the competitor.
• A saisie conducted by a court-appointed expert assisted by a bailiff is held compatible with Article L. 615-5 of the French Intellectual Property Code.
• Practical point: a defendant subject to a saisie should count its review period from service of the bailiff’s report and direct its criticism at the evidence available when the application was filed.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 54, Art. 60 and Art. 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Preamble (point 5) and Rules 9, 192, 196.4, 196.5, 197.1 to 197.4, 199, 220.1(c), 224.2(b), 300 and 330

National law

French Constitution, Art. 55, French Intellectual Property Code, Arts L. 615-5 and R. 615-2.1

Related decisions

• C-Kore Systems v Novawell, 14 November 2023, the saisie order under review.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.