Chainzone Technology (Foshan) v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. (CFI, 19 February 2025)

Date	19 February 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_8499/2025
Parties	Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.

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

By an order of 19 February 2025 (ORD_8499/2025, App_25380/2024, UPC_CFI_156/2024), the Munich Local Division (panel presided over by Judge Zigann as rapporteur) granted Chainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd. access to the file of evidence preservation proceedings brought by SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme Ges.m.b.H. against Yunex GmbH in respect of EP 2 643 717. The order is chiefly of interest for its timing: the decision on access had been deferred until the evidence preservation proceedings were concluded.

Question

May a third party obtain access under Rule 262.1(b) to the file of evidence preservation proceedings, and at what point?

Decision

The judge rapporteur had initially deferred the decision so that the evidence preservation proceedings could be conducted undisturbed. Since an order under Rule 360 had been made the same day in those proceedings, the request was taken up again. The division noted that no ground for refusal had been put forward or was apparent, and granted access as requested. SWARCO was given ten days to notify the Registry of any personal data to be redacted. Access extends only to the redacted version, the Registry carrying out the redaction in accordance with the GDPR.

Key points for practice

A decision on access to the file of evidence preservation proceedings may be deferred until those proceedings are concluded, so as not to disturb them.
Where no ground for refusal exists, access is granted, subject to redaction of the personal data notified by the party concerned.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 192, 262.1(b) and 360
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 (GDPR): redaction of personal data
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantChainzone Technology (Foshan) Co., Ltd.3 decisions in the corpus Follow 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: Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale de Munich accorde à Chainzone l'accès au dossier de la procédure de conservation des preuves, limité à une version expurgée des données personnelles signalées par SWARCO dans un délai de dix jours.
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 2 643 717 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 2 643 717` Color-mixing convergent optical system recorded proprietor: Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 14 other decision(s): SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme v STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety · Natural person v SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme (CFI, 25 June 20 · Chainzone Technology (Foshan) v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme ( · STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssig · Shenzhen Dianming Technology v SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme (C · SWARCO FUTURIT v Yunex (CFI, 2 July 2025) · SWARCO FUTURIT v Yunex (CFI, 3 June 2025) · Chainzone Technology (Foshan) v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme (	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.