fiskaly v SwissBit (CFI, 15 July 2026)
| Date | 15 July 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application for provisional measures |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1332/2026 |
| Registry reference | UPC-CFI-0001332/2026 |
| Parties | fiskaly GmbH v. Swissbit AG, Swissbit Germany AG |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 27 April 2026 : fiskaly v SwissBit (CFI, 27 April 2026) UPC_CFI_1332/2026
- 7 September 2026 : fiskaly v Swissbit (CFI, 7 September 2026) UPC-CFI-0001332/2026
- 8 October 2026 : fiskaly v Swissbit (CFI, 8 October 2026) UPC-CFI-0001332/2026
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
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
- Practical point: until a request for review of an inspection is decided, the applicant should expect even the expert’s summary conclusion to remain restricted to its representatives.
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
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.
Parties
- claimantfiskaly GmbH4 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSwissbit AG3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantSwissbit Germany AG3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 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.
- 15 July 2026 fiskaly v SwissBit (CFI, 15 July 2026) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_1332/2026
- 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.
- 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
EP 4 285 308mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- fiskaly v Swissbit (CFI, 7 September 2026) cited in this record
- fiskaly v SwissBit (CFI, 27 April 2026) cited in this record
- fiskaly v Swissbit (CFI, 8 October 2026) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 4 285 308 | Mentioned 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis |
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.