C-KORE SYSTEMS v NOVAWELL (CFI, 14 November 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 14 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_397/2023, App_583867/2023), the Paris Local Division (C. Lignières, presiding judge and judge-rapporteur, C. Gillet and A. Zana), without hearing NOVAWELL, authorised C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED to have measures to preserve evidence carried out at NOVAWELL’s premises in Montpellier concerning the « SICOM ROV » tool, alleged to infringe EP 2 265 793 on a subsea test apparatus. The order was made before any action on the merits.

The measures closely resemble the French saisie-contrefaçon: detailed description, physical seizure as a fallback, copying of documents and data, and execution by an expert assisted by a bailiff under French law. It shows the conditions for an ex parte measure and the safeguards the division attaches to it.

Facts and procedure

The application was filed on 2 November 2023. The applicant, the patent proprietor, alleged that the tool of the defendant, a former customer trained in 2020 on the applicant’s « CABLE MONITOR » product, infringed independent claims 1 and 15 and several dependent claims. A letter sent in the United Kingdom on the corresponding British patent drew the reply that this market was of no interest to the defendant. The applicant relied on plans to expand to Africa and Australia and on the ease with which the product can be transported.

The applicable law

Measures to preserve evidence are governed by Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 198 RoP. The application must contain the particulars in Rule 192.2 RoP and set out reasonably available facts and evidence supporting infringement. Rule 197 RoP allows an order without hearing the defendant, in particular where delay is likely to cause irreparable harm or there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed. The defendant may request a review within thirty days of execution. The local division’s competence rests on the defendant’s seat in France and on alleged infringement there (Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA).

Question

Are the conditions met for an order to preserve evidence without hearing the defendant, and how is it to be executed?

Decision

The division accepts jurisdiction and finds the Rule 192.2 RoP requirements met. Title is shown by the transfer entries. The patent is in force in several states and no opposition is pending. The applicant provides reasonable evidence of infringement of claim 1, further evidence being needed for the other claims. The market is competitive, the defendant is a direct competitor, a delay of less than three months in acting is reasonable, and the digital nature of the data and the mobility of the product create a risk of evidence disappearing that justifies an ex parte order. The balance of interests, given the applicant’s small size, favours the measure.

The appointed expert, assisted by a locally competent bailiff, may describe the tool in detail, seize it physically against payment of its price if the description is insufficient, seize or copy technical and marketing documents, record statements by those present and copy digital data, passwords included. The expert reports on infringement of claims 1 to 18. Only a designated adviser of the applicant may attend, bound to secrecy even towards the applicant. Its employees and directors are excluded. The report is lodged within seven days, accessible only to representatives within a confidentiality club and usable only in the merits proceedings. Enforcement is conditional on security of EUR 20,000, the measures lapse if the merits action is not started within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.

Key points for practice

• The Paris Local Division accepts an ex parte measure close to the saisie-contrefaçon, carried out under French law by an expert and a bailiff.
• Reasonable evidence of infringement of a single claim is enough to order the measure, while the report may cover all the claims.
• The applicant’s presence is tightly controlled: only an adviser bound to secrecy attends, to the exclusion of employees and directors.
• Practical point: an ex parte application must document the risk of evidence disappearing (digital data, mobile equipment) and the proprietor’s diligence, the defendant has thirty days after execution to request a review.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25, Art. 32(1)(c), Art. 33(1)(b), Art. 58, Art. 60 and Art. 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13.1, 192, 194.2, 196, 197, 198, 220.1(c) and 224.2(b)

Directive (EU) 2016/943

trade secrets

Related decisions

• C-KORE SYSTEMS v NOVAWELL, 1 March 2024, order rejecting 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.