Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord v Siltronic (CFI, 19 November 2025)

Date	19 November 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application RoP262A
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_539/2024
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_539/2024
Parties	Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co. v. Siltronic AG a. o.

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 19 November 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on the release to Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord of the expert report drawn up after the inspection carried out on 11 November 2024 at the premises of Siltronic and Hinterberger (EP 3 212 356). The report goes to the applicant itself, with the prices of the saw wires and the supplier’s bank details redacted. The confidentiality imposed by the inspection order is otherwise lifted. The order applies a two-step test.

Question

In what form should the expert report resulting from a measure to preserve evidence be released to the applicant where the inspected party invokes trade secrets?

Decision

Under Art. 58 UPCA, confidential information irrelevant to infringement or to the extent of the acts of use is redacted. Relevant information is assessed case by case (paragraphs 28 and 29). Prices, as protected trade secrets, and bank details were redacted (paragraphs 30 and 31), the reasons also cover quantities (paragraph 32), which the operative part does not mention. The metal coating and winding pitch, visible on the market, are not confidential (paragraphs 33 to 35), and the findings on the dependent claims were released (paragraphs 36 to 38). The time limit for bringing the merits action runs from the upload of the redacted version (paragraph 39), and the results may be used only in the merits proceedings (paragraph 40).

Key points for practice

The inspected party must show concretely that information is secret. A vague witness statement is not enough (paragraphs 33 to 35).
Practical point: the Art. 60(8) UPCA time limit for starting the merits action may be set to run from the release of the redacted report (paragraph 39).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 25, 58 and 60(8)
Rules of Procedure: Rules 196, 198, 199 and 262A
Case law cited: Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM, Court of Appeal, 23 July 2024

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.

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

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

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.

Proceedings

UPC_CFI_539/2024 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantBekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co.Follow this party
defendantSiltronic AG a. oFollow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le rapport d'expert est communiqué au requérant après occultation des prix et des coordonnées bancaires. La confidentialité est levée pour le surplus et le délai pour agir au fond court à compter du dépôt de la version occultée.
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.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 212 356 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM (CoA, 23 July 2024) cited in this record
Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 26 August 2026) cites this decision

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 212 356`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 1 other decision(s): Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord v Siltronic (CFI, 16 April 2025)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

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.