CJ CheilJedang v Eppen Netherlands (CFI, 28 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a procedural order of 28 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_1540/2026), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division extends, for all defendants (Eppen Netherlands, three Eppen companies based in China and Oostvogels Logistics), the deadline for the statement of defence to six weeks after CJ CheilJedang files the results of its tests on the seized samples, in an action for infringement of EP 3 508 580. The order shows how the court aligns the timetable of the main action with the use of evidence gathered in an earlier preservation of evidence order.

Question

Should the deadline for the statement of defence be extended where the test results on the seized samples are not yet available?

Decision

Yes. The court expert appointed in the preservation of evidence proceedings found no evidence of infringement, which conflicted with the claimant’s earlier analytical reports, and the claimant was then allowed to test the seized samples itself. The defence deadline is tied to those results: if they point to infringement, the defendants may run counter-tests and file the results without delay if testing is not complete by the deadline. The judge suggests that the parties agree on testing by an independent laboratory and, on access to the seized technical documentation, refers to the two-step approach used in recent unpublished orders (relevance review by an independent expert or bailiff). The parties are asked for their availability in August. The reasons are not numbered.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: where the seizure did not confirm infringement, the timetable on the merits may in effect be made to wait for the claimant’s test results, with a right to counter-testing.

Provisions applied

Provisions

The order cites no provision.

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.