Opens in a new tab

fiskaly v SwissBit (CFI, 15 July 2026)

Date15 July 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for provisional measures
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_1332/2026
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-0001332/2026
Partiesfiskaly GmbH v. Swissbit AG, Swissbit Germany AG

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 13 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_1332/2026), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Presiding Judge Thomas, Judge Adocker as judge rapporteur, and Judge Schumacher) refused fiskaly, which obtained on 27 April 2026 an order for inspection and preservation of evidence against SwissBit under EP 4 285 308 B8, disclosure of the summary result of the expert’s detailed report of 15 June 2026 before a decision on the request for review of the inspection order, to be heard on 25 August 2026.

Question

May the applicant learn the expert’s summary conclusion on infringement while the lawfulness of the inspection is still disputed?

Decision

fiskaly’s two requests, one under Rule 9.1 RoP and the other under Rule 333 RoP seeking to amend the confidentiality order of 19 June 2026, are admissible but rejected. Should the inspection later be found unlawful, fiskaly would have wrongly obtained confidential information, which could not be undone. As the report rests on information collected during searches, even its summary result risks affecting SwissBit’s trade secrets. fiskaly does not show why conducting the proceedings requires knowing that result before the hearing. Conversely, SwissBit’s further request under Rule 262A RoP is granted: the passages of its submission of 9 July 2026 from which that result could be inferred are classified as confidential and restricted to fiskaly’s lawyers and patent attorneys until the decision on review, subject to a fine, other persons being excluded from the hearing on those points (Rule 115 RoP).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 58
Rules of Procedure
Rules 9.1, 115, 262A and 333

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Application for a preliminary injunction, Order to preserve evidence (UPC).

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: The Launch Letter: How Generics and Biosimilars Should Write to Avoid UPC Urgency (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
not recorded
Translation available
no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked
not recorded
Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

  • UPC_CFI_1332/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 27 April 2026 fiskaly v SwissBit (CFI, 27 April 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_1332/2026

    L'inspection et la conservation des preuves sont ordonnées sans audition pour le service Swissbit Cloud-TSE 2, la contrefaçon étant rendue vraisemblable par la certification du produit et le risque de transfert des preuves établi, sous réserve d'une garantie de 10 000 euros.

  2. 15 July 2026 fiskaly v SwissBit (CFI, 15 July 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_1332/2026
  3. 7 September 2026 fiskaly v Swissbit (CFI, 7 September 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_1332/2026

    La division locale de Düsseldorf maintient l'ordonnance de saisie et de conservation des preuves du 27 avril 2026, complétée sur le seul dépôt des pièces au greffe, et rejette pour le surplus la demande de réexamen de SwissBit.

  4. 8 October 2026 fiskaly v Swissbit (CFI, 8 October 2026) Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192 · UPC_CFI_1332/2026

    La division locale de Düsseldorf ordonne la levée de la description de l’expert sous caviardages annexe par annexe, réserve l’accès à un cercle nominatif restreint, cantonne l’usage des résultats à une action au fond contre Swissbit et prévoit la caducité des mesures d’inspection faute d’action introduite dans le délai…

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for provisional measures
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Le résultat résumé du rapport de l'expert n'est pas communiqué au requérant avant la décision sur le réexamen de l'inspection, et les passages des observations des défenderesses qui le révèlent sont réservés à ses représentants.
Appeal
No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance
First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 4 285 308Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 3 other decision(s): fiskaly v Swissbit (CFI, 7 September 2026) · fiskaly v SwissBit (CFI, 27 April 2026) · fiskaly v Swissbit (CFI, 8 October 2026)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet
links not checked
mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis
The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.