Collomix v Lidl Digital Deutschland (CFI, 21 November 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_550/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division (T. Pichlmaier), in Collomix’s infringement action against Lidl Digital Deutschland, Lidl Dienstleistung and Delta-Sport Handelskontor, ordered the claimant to lodge with the Court a sample of the « PARKSIDE® Wasser-Dosiergerät », with its original packaging, instructions and a suitable screwdriver. The order rejects the notion that evidence must always accompany the Statement of claim, which matters to any claimant wishing to supplement its evidence during the proceedings.

Question

May a claimant, after filing the Statement of claim, produce physical evidence of facts alleged in it, despite an objection based on Rule 171.1?

Decision

The first two defendants argued that the evidence and the request to produce it belonged in the Statement of claim, and that infringement had been disputed before the action. The third defendant did not respond. The judge-rapporteur held that Rule 172.2 allows the Court to order, at any time, a party asserting a fact to produce evidence in its control: the claimant asserts that the defendants offer and distribute the product, which they do not deny, and it holds the device. The Rules of Procedure contain no principle barring the production, after filing, of evidence for facts alleged in the claim. Otherwise Rules 103.1(c), 104(e), 114 and 172.2 would serve no purpose. Production must be distinguished from whether the Court will take the evidence into account in its decision. The judge-rapporteur must also prepare the hearing so as to avoid an adjournment for further evidence (Rule 114).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: producing evidence after the Statement of claim is not excluded in principle, whether it is taken into account is decided later.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 103.1(c), 104(e), 114, 171.1 and 172.2, Preamble, point 7

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.