Data Detection Technologies v Esde Makine Otomasyon Tarım Teknolojileri (CFI, 25 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 25 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_897/2025), the standing judge of The Hague Local Division granted, without hearing the other side, a precautionary seizure of an SD-14010 machine exhibited by the Turkish company Esde Makine at an agricultural trade fair in the Netherlands, at the request of Data Detection Technologies, proprietor of EP 2 569 713 (item dispenser). Seised the day before the last day of the fair, the division granted the measure the following day, confined it to technical material and released the applicant from providing security. The order illustrates the UPC’s speed of response at trade fairs and how it combines Rules 192 et seq. with Dutch seizure law.

Facts and procedure

On 23 September 2025, a Data Detection Technologies manager saw the machine on Esde’s stand at the Seed meets Technology fair in Zwaagdijk-Oost, where a salesperson reportedly told him that it counts items using three cameras (paragraphs 1 to 3 and 16). The application, filed on 24 September 2025, also relied on an online video and on Esde’s website (paragraph 17). The fair ended on 25 September 2025.

The applicable law

Jurisdiction rests on Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation and Articles 32(1)(a) and (c) and 33(1)(a) UPCA (paragraphs 5 and 6). The measures are based on Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 198: Rule 197 allows an order without hearing the defendant where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed, and Rule 196.6 allows security to be dispensed with in special circumstances. As the seizure takes place in the Netherlands, its execution is governed by Dutch law (paragraph 40).

Question

May a seizure to preserve evidence be ordered without hearing the defendant, and without security, for a machine shown by a foreign company at a trade fair about to close?

Decision

The division saw no reason at this stage to doubt the patent’s validity, there being no opposition or known revocation action (paragraphs 10 and 11), and found infringement of claims 1 and 8 plausible (paragraphs 13 to 18). The need for the measure was established: such machines are hard to access and the fair was « a rare opportunity » for the applicant (paragraphs 19 and 20). Urgency was described as extreme, the defendant being based abroad and the fair closing that day, and the technical documentation could easily disappear (paragraphs 21 to 23). The balance of interests favoured the applicant, the impact being limited since the machine had been shown for almost the entire fair. The seizure was confined to technical material, excluding promotional and commercial documents (paragraphs 25 to 27). The order allows seizure of one unit, collection of technical documentation and a detailed description with photographs and video, by a bailiff assisted by a technical expert, without the applicant’s representatives being present, in line with Dutch law (paragraph 41). The expert report may be used only in the merits proceedings and the applicant’s access is deferred, the defendant being able to request confidentiality (paragraph 34). No security was required: the brevity of the fair would compromise execution and the applicant is a large industrial company able to compensate the defendant (paragraph 38). The measure is immediately enforceable (paragraph 39) and will lapse absent merits proceedings within the Rule 198 period (paragraph 35).

Key points for practice

• A short trade fair may justify an ex parte seizure granted within a day by the standing judge.
• The division confines the seizure to the technical material needed as evidence and excludes commercial documents.
• Security may be waived under Rule 196.6 where requiring it would compromise execution and the applicant is solvent.
• Practical point: a patentee who spots a product at a trade fair should immediately gather observations, video and a claim comparison so as to apply to the competent division before the fair closes.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(a) and (c), 33(1)(a) and 60

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194, 196, 197, 198 and 199

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 7(2)

Other provisions

Dutch Code of Civil Procedure, Art. 443(2)

Case law cited

Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM, Court of Appeal, 23 July 2024, CJ CheilJedang v Daesang Europe, 13 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_736/2025), CJ CheilJedang v Daesang Europe, 13 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_739/2025)

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.