CJ CheilJedang v Daesang Europe (CFI, UPC_CFI_736/2025, 13 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 25 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_736/2025), the single judge of The Hague Local Division authorised CJ CheilJedang, without hearing the defendants, to seize three bags of Daesang’s powdered L‑lysine and copies of commercial and technical documents at a Dutch warehouse in order to establish infringement of EP 3 508 580. Execution follows Dutch law, under which the applicant’s representatives may not attend the seizure.

Facts and procedure

CJ CheilJedang owns EP 3 508 580, entitled « Novel Promoter and use thereof », which protects a nucleic acid molecule with promoter activity, an expression cassette, a vector, a microorganism of the genus Corynebacterium and a method of producing a target product such as L‑lysine, an animal feed additive (paragraphs 2.4 and 2.5). The patent had been opted out. The opt-out was withdrawn on 24 July 2025 (paragraph 2.4.2).

Daesang Europe, the European arm of the Daesang group, sells L‑lysine in Europe. The second defendant operates a warehouse in Oosterhout where powdered lysine is stored (paragraph 2.3). The application of 13 August 2025 sought seizure of samples and documents, analysis of the samples by an expert in cooperation with Eurofins and appointment of a bailiff as custodian (paragraph 3). A separate order of the same day concerns a warehouse at Moerdijk (UPC_CFI_739/2025).

The applicable law

International jurisdiction rests on Article 4 of the Brussels I recast Regulation, the court competent on the merits also being competent for provisional measures. The Hague division is competent under Rules 192.1 and 199 RoP and Article 33(1)(a) and (b) UPCA, since the action on the merits is to be brought against Daesang Europe or its parent (paragraph 5). Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 198 RoP govern the seizure: plausibility of infringement, proportionality, subsidiarity and, for an ex parte measure, risk of irreparable harm or of evidence being destroyed (Rule 197 RoP).

Execution in the Netherlands is also governed by Dutch law, in particular Articles 700 and 1019b to 1019d of the Code of Civil Procedure and the practice of the national courts on seizure of evidence (paragraph 6.8).

Question

May an ex parte seizure of evidence be ordered at the warehouse of a third-party custodian, and must the applicant’s representatives be allowed to attend, as Rule 196.3(a) RoP permits?

Decision

The judge ruled without hearing the defendants, since delay was likely to cause irreparable harm and there was a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed (paragraph 4.1). The assessment of plausibility of infringement is redacted in the published version. The judge stressed that it results from a summary examination in which only the applicant was heard (paragraph 6.4). The measure was proportionate and subsidiary, since the product, sold on a niche market through restricted channels, is available neither to the public nor to competitors. The evidence was described concretely enough and the stored lysine is presumed to be held for Daesang Europe (paragraphs 6.5 to 6.7).

Rule 196.3(a) RoP uses the word « may » and therefore does not require the applicant’s representatives to be allowed to attend. To avoid difficulties of execution under Article 443(2) of the Dutch Code, no representative of CJ may be present at the seizure (paragraphs 6.9 and 7.13). The order permits seizure of copies of documents, with a supervised procedure for seizing data carriers where copying on site is impracticable (paragraphs 7.1 to 7.5), seizure of three 25 kg bags and analysis of two of them by an expert from Bielefeld University working with Eurofins (paragraphs 7.7 to 7.9). The report and documents will first be available to the defendants’ representatives only, and to the applicant’s from the fifth working day, unless confidentiality is requested (paragraphs 7.6 and 7.10).

A penalty of EUR 5,000 per hour, capped at EUR 100,000, sanctions any refusal to provide passwords (paragraph 7.3). The measures will lapse unless an action on the merits is brought within 31 calendar days or 20 working days of disclosure of the report (paragraph 7.20). The order is immediately enforceable and costs are reserved to the merits (paragraphs 7.21 and 7.22).

Key points for practice

• Withdrawing an opt-out a few weeks before the application is enough to bring a seizure of evidence before the UPC.
• Attendance of the applicant’s representatives at the seizure is only an option under Rule 196.3(a) RoP, before a Dutch division it is excluded to comply with national enforcement law.
• Scarcity of the product on the market supports subsidiarity where the applicant cannot obtain it otherwise.
• Practical point: for a seizure in the Netherlands, frame the application in line with Articles 1019b et seq. of the Dutch Code and national practice on seizure of documents, which govern execution.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 33(1)(a) and (b) and 60(6) and (8)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194.3, 196.3(a), 197.3, 198.1 and 199

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4

Related decisions

• CJ CheilJedang v Daesang Europe, 25 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_739/2025), separate order concerning the Moerdijk warehouse.

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.