Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 26 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_1696/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on the release to Topsoe of the experts’ detailed description drawn up after the inspection and preservation order of 25 and 26 November 2025, executed at SYPOX’s premises (EP 3 802 413, hydrogen production by steam methane reforming). She applied a three-step test and allocated the burden of showing relevance according to whether the expert relied on the information. For the H-200 installation, the balance favoured release, subject to a purpose limitation and a confidentiality club (paragraphs 108 to 112). The same method led, for the « Pilot 1 » installation, to a heavily redacted release, with several annexes withheld altogether. The judge also refused attorneys’ eyes only access and the deletion of the captured data, and set the time limit for the main action to run from actual release.

Facts and procedure

The inspection, ordered without hearing SYPOX, was carried out on 26 November 2025, the experts filed their detailed description on 30 December 2025. On a request for review under Rule 197.3 RoP, an order of 4 May 2026 upheld security of EUR 500,000 for opening the reactor and dismissed the remainder. SYPOX filed several redaction proposals and sought, as its main request, a reduced release, deletion of captured data and access limited to Topsoe’s external counsel (paragraphs 36 to 39).

The applicable law

Confidentiality may be raised independently of a request for review (paragraph 55). The division first asks whether the material is a trade secret, third-party personal data or other confidential information within Art. 58 UPCA, it then redacts confidential information irrelevant to infringement. Finally, it decides case by case whether relevant information is released under a confidentiality obligation or restricted to a defined group (paragraphs 56 to 59).

Question

Which parts of the detailed description and its annexes may be released to the applicant, and on what confidentiality terms?

Decision

Information the expert relied on is generally relevant, and the respondent must show otherwise. For other information, the applicant must show relevance, and information needed to understand the explanations as a whole may also be relevant (paragraphs 70 to 72). The « Pilot 2 » section, outside the order, was fully redacted by agreement (paragraph 60). For H-200, confidentiality was found and some annexes were redacted in whole or in part (paragraphs 61 to 107), for the rest, Topsoe’s interest in assessing infringement and deciding whether to bring a main action prevailed, SYPOX identifying no harm that the purpose limitation to main proceedings against the respondents and the confidentiality club would not address (paragraphs 110 to 112). For « Pilot 0 », the experts’ finding of non-infringement did not justify full redaction (paragraphs 114 to 118). The « Pilot 1 » installation falls within the inspection order (paragraphs 141 to 143), the related information is confidential, including what partners in the research project know, as they are bound by confidentiality undertakings (paragraphs 144 to 150). Figure by figure, the judge checked whether the expert relied on it: material used was released, the argument that infringement could have been shown another way being irrelevant, while data whose relevance was not specifically shown (reactor dimensions, syngas composition, certain parameters) were redacted (paragraphs 151 to 244). Annexes the expert only quoted in extracts (reformer and reactor drawings, data sheets, an order confirmation, measurement data, photographs) were not released beyond those extracts (paragraphs 201 to 244). Release is subject to the same purpose limitation and confidentiality club (paragraph 245). The confidentiality obligation in the inspection order continues and extends to information gathered outside its subject matter (paragraphs 246 to 249). Deletion of data was refused, the experts’ duty of secrecy being sufficient (paragraphs 250 and 251). Attorneys’ eyes only access was rejected: Rule 262A.6 RoP requires access for at least one natural person of each party unless the other side agrees, which also applies to inspections (paragraphs 252 and 253). The operative part requires SYPOX to upload the redacted versions by 4 September 2026, invites Topsoe to name the authorised persons by the same date, withholds annexes D1 to D12 (« Pilot 2 »), D13, D15 and D16 (« H-200 ») and L2, L3, L4, L5, L6, L8 and L12 (« Pilot 1 »), limits use of the results to main proceedings against the respondents and recalls that the measures lapse unless a main action is brought within 31 calendar days or 20 working days of release (paragraphs 254 and 255).

Key points for practice

• The burden of showing relevance follows the use the expert made of the information (paragraphs 70 to 72).
• The purpose limitation in the inspection order survives release (paragraph 110), and the confidentiality obligation also covers information gathered outside its subject matter (paragraphs 246 to 249).
• Attorneys’ eyes only access is not available without the other side’s consent, even in inspection proceedings (Rule 262A.6 RoP) (paragraphs 252 and 253).
• Practical point: the inspected party must pinpoint each item of information and the concrete harm its release would cause, beyond what the purpose limitation and the confidentiality club already cover.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 27(b), 58 and 60(8)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 194(d), 196, 196.2, 197, 197.3, 198.1, 199, 199.2, 262A and 262A.6

Other provisions

TRIPS Agreement, Art. 39(2)

Case law cited

Bekaert v Siltronic, Düsseldorf Local Division, 19 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_539/2024), Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM, Court of Appeal, 23 July 2024 (UPC_CoA_177/2024), Strabag v Swarco, Court of Appeal, 1 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_70/2025), Organon Heist v Genentech, Brussels Local Division, 12 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_407/2025), Van Loon Beheer v Inverquark, Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_1325/2025), Ericsson v ASUSTek, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026 (UPC_CoA_631/2025), Yangtze Memory v Micron, Düsseldorf Local Division, 17 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_1034/2025)

Related decisions

• Topsoe v SYPOX, 25 November 2025, inspection and preservation order.
• Topsoe v SYPOX, 4 May 2026, order on the request for 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.