DATA DETECTION v DOYTEC AUTOMATION (CFI, 18 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 25 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_554/2024, ACT_53296/2024, ORD_53411/2024), made for the Hague Local Division by P. Perrotti, presiding judge of the Milan Local Division sitting as standing judge for extremely urgent matters, the UPC allowed Data Detection Technologies, without hearing Doytec Automation, to have the « C-1012 » seed counting machine described and photographed at a Dutch trade fair, to gather its documentation and to take a sample, with regard to EP 2 569 713. Obtained on the very day the application was filed, the order shows how quickly the standing judge arrangement can work and that no security may be required where execution is confined to the days of a fair.

Facts and procedure

Both companies were exhibiting at the Seeds meets Technology 2024 fair, held from 24 to 26 September 2024 at Zwaagdijk-Oost (Netherlands). Two employees of the applicant gave written statements that they had seen Doytec’s machine on its stand on 24 September. The ex parte application was filed on 25 September 2024 and the order was signed the same day.

The applicable law

Jurisdiction of the UPC and of the Hague Local Division rests on Arts. 32(1)(c) and 33(1)(a) UPCA, the alleged infringement taking place in the Netherlands (paragraph 1). The measures fall under Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 199, an ex parte order requires the conditions of Rules 194.2 and 197, in particular a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed or becoming unavailable (Art. 60(5) UPCA). The standing judge acts under Rules 1.2(c), 194.4, 345.5 and 351.1(a).

Question

Do the urgency created by a trade fair and a defendant based outside the EU justify an ex parte order to preserve evidence, and on what terms as to execution, confidentiality and security?

Decision

The judge relied on the presumption of validity, no opposition or revocation action being known (paragraph 3.1), and found the suspicion of infringement of claims 1 and 8, broken down into features, plausible in light of the witness statements and the proposed comparison (paragraph 3.2). Extreme urgency followed from the duration of the fair (paragraph 4.1), the defendant’s seat abroad raised a risk of evidence disappearing or becoming unavailable (paragraph 4.2).

Balancing the interests (paragraph 6.1), the measure was confined to the fair stand: description, photographs and video, technical, promotional and commercial documents, and a sample left with a custodian under Dutch law, which governs execution (paragraph 6.2, Rule 196.4). No representative of the applicant was to attend, as it had requested. Following the Court of Appeal, disclosure of the report to the applicant forms part of the purpose of the measure, but the defendant must be heard on confidentiality: absent a request by 30 October 2024, access opens on that date (paragraph 6.3). Service takes place on execution, to preserve the element of surprise (paragraph 6.5). No security was ordered, given the special circumstances under Rule 196.6, the applicant being described as a large industrial company and the window for execution being a single day (paragraph 6.6). Costs are reserved for the merits.

Key points for practice

• A standing judge from another division can rule within the day for a local division on an extremely urgent application.
• Rule 196.6 allows security to be dispensed with where the circumstances, here a three-day fair, warrant it.
• The time limit to start the merits action (31 calendar days or 20 working days, whichever is longer) runs from disclosure of the evidence to the applicant.
• Practical point: preparing witness statements, a feature breakdown of the claims and the choice of expert in advance makes it possible to obtain a measure that can be executed at a fair before it closes.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 32(1)(c), 33(1)(a), 60 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 1.2(c), 192, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 220.1(c), 224.2(b), 345.5 and 351.1(a)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 7(1) and (3)

Case law cited

Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM, Court of Appeal, 23 July 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.