fiskaly v Swissbit (CFI, 8 October 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 17 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 8 October 2026 (UPC_CFI_1332/2026), the Düsseldorf Local Division set the terms on which the detailed description prepared by the court-appointed expert, following the inspection and preservation of evidence proceedings brought by fiskaly against Swissbit, may be released. It strictly limits access to the results, confines their use to an action on the merits and provides that the inspection measures lapse if no such action is brought in time. The order does not address infringement.

Facts and procedure

fiskaly GmbH, based in Vienna, relies on EP 4 285 308 B1, entitled Securely registering a sequence of transactions, against Swissbit AG, based in Switzerland, and Swissbit Germany AG, based in Berlin. The claims at issue are claim 6 and its dependent claims 7 to 9, together with independent claims 1, 10 and 12. Inspection measures were ordered in April 2026 under Rules 194 et seq. RoP, and the expert recorded the findings in a detailed description with annexes. The remaining question was how far that material could be handed over to the applicant. The order was issued by the judge-rapporteur, Thomas Adocker, sitting alone, and was published on the register on 13 October 2026.

Question

On what terms may an expert’s description drawn up after an inspection be disclosed to the applicant without compromising the defendants’ confidential information?

Decision

The Local Division ordered the release of the description and its annexes, subject to redactions determined annex by annex. Access is reserved to the applicant’s representatives and to a small, named group of employees, who are bound to secrecy even towards the company on whose behalf they act. The results may only be used for an action on the merits against Swissbit. The April 2026 inspection measures lapse if that action is not brought within 31 calendar days or 20 working days. The parties’ broader requests were rejected, and the order replaces the earlier confidentiality orders.

Key points for practice

• Release of the expert’s description is argued annex by annex, so the applicant should prepare a precise case on the scope of the redactions for each document.
• A confidentiality club may be limited to named individuals and bind employees even in their dealings with their own company, which makes it worth identifying early the few people genuinely needed for the technical analysis.
• The applicant should plan the filing of the action on the merits as soon as release is obtained, failing which the inspection measures lapse, and the results may only be used in that action.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 194 et seq. RoP

Related decisions

• fiskaly v Swissbit, 7 September 2026, an earlier order in the same proceedings.
• fiskaly v Swissbit, 15 July 2026, an earlier stage of the same proceedings.
• fiskaly v Swissbit, 27 April 2026, a decision issued in April 2026 in the same proceedings.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 17 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.