3V Sigma v A.C.E.F. (CFI, 19 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 19 May 2025 (UPC_CFI_342/2025), made without hearing the other side, the Milan Local Division granted 3V Sigma, in part, measures to preserve evidence and inspect premises under EP 3 275 872 and EP 3 275 426 (UV filters for cosmetics). The measure was directed only at the distributing subsidiary, ACEF S.r.l., and confined to samples and technical documentation of the product MFSorb 513, the parent company and accounting and commercial records were excluded.

The order shows the Milan Division’s proportionality review: ex parte seizure is available where technical evidence is volatile, but it is not a route to the opponent’s accounts, which belong to the production measures available in the main action.

Facts and procedure

3V Sigma, which owns both patents, alleges that ACEF S.r.l. distributes MFSorb 513, a UVB filter supplied by a Chinese manufacturer. On 3 March 2025 it bought a 25 kg batch through a trader. Laboratory analysis found compounds which its expert matched to the claimed formulas. The application, filed on 16 April 2025 against ACEF S.p.A. and ACEF S.r.l., sought samples, technical documentation, accounting and commercial records and access to the report. The judge rapporteur had requested further information by order of 5 May 2025.

The applicable law

The Division based its jurisdiction on Arts 32(1)(c) and 33(1)(b) UPCA and Arts 4 and 71a of Regulation 1215/2012, the opt-out having been withdrawn on 14 April 2025 (section 1). It applied Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 197: reasonable plausibility of infringement, urgency and a risk of destruction of evidence for an ex parte measure (Rules 194.2 and 197), a balancing of interests, and security (Rules 196.3 and 196.6).

Question

Were the conditions for an ex parte seizure met, and could the measure extend to the parent company and to accounting and commercial records?

Decision

The Division accepted ownership and the presumption of validity, no opposition or revocation action having been disclosed, and found infringement sufficiently plausible on the test results and expert opinion, the threshold being lower for a procedural measure (section 3). Urgency followed from the recent test results and the ongoing marketing campaign. The risk of destruction from the ease of deleting digital files (section 4).

The measure was confined to samples and technical documentation: Italian companies are under statutory record-keeping duties, no risk of destruction was alleged in that respect, and production can be sought in the main action (Art. 67 UPCA, Rules 190 and 191). ACEF S.p.A. was excluded, since holding 100% of the subsidiary did not show direct involvement (section 6.2). Following the Court of Appeal’s decision of 23 July 2024, the Division withheld access to the report until 30 June 2025, subject to a confidentiality request (section 6.4). Enforcement was made conditional on security of EUR 15,000, based on the product price and the quantity sampled (section 6.7).

Key points for practice

• Ex parte seizure is granted for technical evidence, considered volatile, but not for the accounts of a company bound by statutory record-keeping duties.
• Holding the whole share capital of the subsidiary is not enough to extend the measure to the parent company without evidence of direct involvement.
• The applicant’s access to the expert report is deferred so that the defendant can seek confidentiality, in line with the Court of Appeal.
• Practical point: a seizure application is best aimed at the evidence genuinely at risk of disappearing and at the entity directly involved, broader requests will be left to production measures in the main action.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b), 60 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194, 196, 197 and 220.1

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Arts 4 and 71a

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 7

Case law cited

Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM, Court of Appeal, 23 July 2024, Primetals Technologies Austria v Danieli, 11 September 2024, Prinoth v Xelom, 18 March 2025, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2024, UPC_CFI_539/2024

Related decisions

• 3V Sigma v A.C.E.F., 23 September 2025, later order on confidentiality (Rule 262A).
• 3V Sigma v A.G.A, 5 December 2025, later order in the same evidence preservation proceedings.

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.