3V Sigma v ACEF (CFI, 23 September 2025)
| Date | 23 September 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_342/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_342/2025 |
| Parties | 3VSigma v. AGA-ACEF |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 19 May 2025 : 3V Sigma v A.C.E.F. (CFI, 19 May 2025) ACT_18051/2025 · ORD_21737/2025 · UPC_CFI_342/2025
- 5 December 2025 : 3V Sigma v A.G.A (CFI, 5 December 2025) UPC_CFI_342/2025
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
In an order of 23 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_342/2025), issued in Italian, the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division organised access to the documents gathered when a seizure to preserve evidence was executed for 3V Sigma against ACEF and AGA. He refused to exclude the applicant’s representatives from the confidentiality club and also admitted one independent consultant and one officer of 3V Sigma. The order is a reminder that restricting access under Rule 262A must rest on concrete reasons.
Question
May the defendant have the applicant’s representatives and its sole natural person kept away from confidential technical information obtained through a seizure?
Decision
3V Sigma’s access to documents 1, 2, 19 and 20, which fell outside the seizure order, was barred, as the applicant had accepted. Documents 3 to 18, mainly technical data from the manufacturer of the filter at issue received under a duty of confidence, were classified as confidential within Article 58 UPCA. Absent any concrete reason, excluding the applicant’s representatives, which would depart from the ordinary regime of Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/943 and Rule 262A, was refused, their teams have access under their responsibility. Only one independent consultant was admitted, the technical issues not warranting more, together with one natural person from 3V Sigma, Rule 262A.6 requiring at least one person from each party. Access was set for 21 October 2025, unless review is sought.
Key points for practice
- Excluding a party’s representatives from the confidentiality club requires concrete reasons, which will seldom be present.
- The number of consultants admitted is proportionate to the technical complexity of the case.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts 58 and 60(6)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 197.3, 262A and 333
- Other provisions
- Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9
- Case law cited
- Düsseldorf Local Division, 15 July 2025 (UPC_CFI_181/2024), Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_621/2024), Court of Appeal, 3 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_221/2025)
Related decisions
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Confidentiality club.
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
Follow this case
Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.
Parties
- claimant3VSigma2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantAGA-ACEF2 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 19 May 2025 3V Sigma v A.C.E.F. (CFI, 19 May 2025) Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 · UPC_CFI_342/2025
La division locale de Milan accorde sans audition de l'adversaire une saisie limitée aux échantillons et à la documentation technique chez la filiale distributrice, exclut la société mère et les documents comptables, et subordonne l'exécution à une garantie de 15 000 euros.
- 23 September 2025 3V Sigma v ACEF (CFI, 23 September 2025) Application RoP262A · UPC_CFI_342/2025
- 5 December 2025 3V Sigma v A.G.A (CFI, 5 December 2025) Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 · UPC_CFI_342/2025
La demande de réexamen de l'ordonnance de conservation des preuves du 19 mai 2025 est rejetée et le dépôt tardif d'un rapport d'expertise commandé après cette demande est refusé.
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262A
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Le juge-rapporteur qualifie de confidentielles les pièces techniques issues de la saisie et y admet les représentants du requérant, un consultant indépendant et un dirigeant de 3V Sigma, faute de raison concrète de les exclure.
- Appeal
- No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
- Instance
- First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- 3V Sigma v A.G.A (CFI, 5 December 2025) cited in this record
- 3V Sigma v A.C.E.F. (CFI, 19 May 2025) cited in this record
Receive an alert
Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.