Dall Energy v Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik (CFI, 26 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 10 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_513/2025), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Copenhagen Local Division, in Dall Energy’s infringement action on EP2334762 against Polytechnik Luft- und Feuerungstechnik, ordered the defendant to produce within two weeks the construction drawings of its furnaces and the manuals supplied to its customers, subject to a penalty and a confidentiality club limited to the representatives, requested the allocation of a technically qualified judge, refused to hear two witnesses in person and set the oral hearing for 26 August 2026.

Question

Can the claimant obtain production of the drawings and manuals of the accused installations where the defendant relies on the burden of proof and the protection of its trade secrets, and when will a witness be heard in person?

Decision

The judge noted that the claimant bears the burden of proving every feature. The defendant’s statements on the temperature and combustion layout of its furnaces are not an allegation that infringement is impossible which it would have to prove. Dall Energy had presented reasonably available and plausible evidence, drawn partly from the defendant’s own marketing material. The documents requested are relevant, needed to answer the defence arguments, and their production is proportionate. A penalty of up to EUR 1,000 per day of delay may be imposed, and access is limited to the claimant’s representatives and their teams. The technical nature of the dispute, in particular on autoignition at low temperatures, warrants a technically qualified judge, the request having been made before the written procedure closed. Hearing the witnesses in person was refused for want of sufficient reasons under Rule 176 RoP: assessing credibility is not enough and the facts to be confirmed were not specified.

Key points for practice

• The defendant’s own marketing material may be enough to provide the reasonably available evidence required for an order to produce.
• Practical point: a request to hear a witness in person must specify the facts to be established, testing credibility alone is not sufficient.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 53, 54, 55, 58, 59(1) and 73

Rules of Procedure

Rules 33.1, 33.2, 34.1, 171.2, 172, 176, 177.1, 190, 220.1 and 262A

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 6(1)

Case law cited

Guangdong OPPO v Panasonic, Court of Appeal, 24 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_298/2024, 299/2024 and 300/2024), Dish v Aylo, Mannheim Local Division, 20 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_471/2023), Tiroler Rohre v SSAB Swedish Steel, Munich Local Division, 6 June 2025 (UPC_CFI_324/2024)

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.