ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG v WEPA NEDERLAND (CFI, 17 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 17 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1103/2026), made without hearing the defendant, the single judge of The Hague Local Division authorises Essity Hygiene and Health to carry out, at WEPA Nederland’s premises, a detailed description, the taking of samples and the seizure of documents concerning the manufacture of tissue paper from Miscanthus pulp fibres, under EP 3 289 139 B1. The order is useful for the detail of its arrangements: execution under Dutch seizure law, exclusion of the applicant’s representatives from the operations, deferred access to the reports subject to a confidentiality request, and an hourly penalty for failure to cooperate.

Facts and procedure

The patent, concerning tissue paper comprising pulp fibres from Miscanthus, was maintained by the EPO Opposition Division on 11 November 2025, a decision WEPA appealed on 8 January 2026, WEPA also brought a revocation action before the Paris Central Division on 8 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1898/2025), to which Essity responded with 13 auxiliary requests (paragraphs 2.2.1 to 2.2.3). Essity’s application, dated 30 March 2026, led to a request for information from the Division on 10 April, answered by Essity on 14 April 2026. Essity states that it could not verify infringement by analysis, having approached five laboratories (paragraphs 6.6 and 6.10).

The applicable law

Measures to preserve evidence and inspection are governed by Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 199 RoP. International jurisdiction rests on Art. 4 of Regulation 1215/2012 and the Division’s competence on Art. 33(1)(a) UPCA, execution is governed by Dutch law, notably Articles 443(2) and 461d of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure.

Question

Are the conditions met for seizure and description without hearing the defendant, and on what terms of execution and access to the evidence?

Decision

The judge finds a risk of irreparable harm and destruction of evidence sufficient to proceed without hearing the defendant (paragraph 4.1). Validity is sufficiently plausible despite the EPO appeal and the revocation action (paragraph 6.1). Infringement of features 1.2 and 1.4 of claim 1 is plausible on the basis of WEPA’s public documents and the Miscanthus grower’s website, though not confirmed by analysis (paragraphs 6.2 to 6.7). Proportionality and subsidiarity are met, laboratory analysis having proved impossible and the relevant documents being in WEPA’s hands (paragraphs 6.10 and 6.11).

The order authorises description of the products and process, without physical testing, four samples of each listed material and seizure of documents from 23 August 2023, by a bailiff assisted by a technical expert and an IT expert. In line with Dutch practice, Essity’s representatives may not attend (paragraph 6.14) and staff may be questioned but not compelled to answer (paragraph 6.15). Essity gains access to the reports only four weeks after they are lodged, subject to a confidentiality request by WEPA. Failure to cooperate attracts EUR 10,000 per hour, capped at EUR 200,000, the main action must be brought within 31 calendar days or 20 working days of access to the reports, and costs are reserved.

Key points for practice

• A documented inability to establish infringement by laboratory analysis weighs in favour of the measure’s subsidiarity.
• The Hague Division aligns the measure with Dutch enforcement law, including the exclusion of the applicant’s representatives, reading Rule 196.3(a) as merely permissive.
• A pending revocation action and an appeal against an opposition decision favourable to the proprietor do not defeat plausible validity.
• Practical point: the application should list precisely the features to be described, the materials to be sampled and the categories of documents, since this shapes the scope of the measure granted.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 33(1)(a) and 60

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194.3, 196.3, 197.3 and 199

Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

Art. 4

Related decisions

• Essity v WEPA Nederland, 22 June 2026, later order in the same proceedings.

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.