3V Sigma v A.G.A (CFI, 5 December 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order dated 4 December 2025 and lodged on 5 December, the Milan Local Division dismissed the request by A.G.A. and A.C.E.F. to review the ex parte order for preservation of evidence of 19 May 2025 granted to 3V Sigma, which holds patents on UV-absorbing triazine compounds and cosmetic compositions. It also refused the late filing of a university expert report commissioned after the review request. The order confirms that no requirement to act promptly applies to an applicant for preservation of evidence, and that a review request must set out its grounds and evidence from the outset.

Facts and procedure

Seised on 16 April 2025, the division asked for further information on 5 May and, on 19 May 2025, ordered against A.C.E.F. only the seizure of technical documents and samples of the product MFSorb 513, supplied by MFCI Co., Ltd., subject to EUR 15,000 security, the material being sealed. A confidentiality order of 23 September 2025 was not appealed. The review request, filed on 27 June 2025, challenged infringement, urgency and the laboratory’s method. On 24 October 2025 the defendants sought leave under Rule 9 to file a University of Milan report, commissioned on 16 July 2025, finding certain dimers undetectable. 3V Sigma objected. The review hearing took place on 11 November 2025.

The applicable law

Review of an order made without hearing the defendant falls under Article 60(6) UPCA and Rule 197.3. Article 60(1) UPCA, reflecting Article 7(1) of Directive 2004/48/EC, requires the applicant to present reasonably available evidence supporting a claim of infringement. Rule 192.3 requires disclosure of material facts, Rule 192.2(c) concerns the need for the measures and Rule 197.2 the risk of evidence being destroyed.

Question

Can the defendants file, during review, an expert report commissioned after their request, and should the preservation order have been revoked for lack of candour, insufficient evidence of infringement or lack of urgency?

Decision

The report was held inadmissible: a review request must state its grounds and rely on the facts and evidence available when it is filed, the defendants had merely reserved the right to file later opinions without disclosing that analyses had been commissioned, conduct hardly consistent with fair dealing and creating an information asymmetry. On the duty of disclosure, assessed ex ante, the attack on the laboratory’s method failed: the HPLC-UV/MS method was not disputed, the defendants had used it for their own counter-analyses and had not specified what was omitted. The applicant need not prove infringement: evidence making the claim coherent and credible suffices, which the mass spectrometry results provided. Relying on the Court of Appeal, the division held that no duty to act promptly applies to an applicant for preservation of evidence. The need for the measures and a concrete risk of digital documents being destroyed were established. The subsidiary request for partial revocation on confidentiality grounds failed, the order of 23 September 2025 having dealt with it. Costs were left to the main action.

Key points for practice

• The review request fixes the grounds and evidence: an expert report commissioned afterwards, without notice, may be excluded as unfair.
• A party alleging breach of the duty of disclosure must specify the facts omitted.
• Alleged marketing of the product since January 2023 did not bar preservation of evidence, since there is no requirement to act promptly.
• Practical point: a party subject to a seizure should gather and file its counter-expert evidence with the review request, or at least announce precisely any analyses under way.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 60 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 192, 194, 197, 220.1(c) and 224.2(b)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 7(1)

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, 15 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_327/2025), Prinoth v Xelom, Milan Local Division, 27 October 2025, Genentech v Organon, Brussels Local Division, 12 November 2025, Mannheim Local Division, 3 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_142/2025)

Related decisions

• 3V Sigma v A.G.A, 19 May 2025, preservation of evidence order upheld.
• 3V Sigma v A.G.A, 23 September 2025, confidentiality order.

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.