Imbox Protection v Brunngård Group (CFI, 17 February 2025)

Date	17 February 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Nordic Baltic Regional Division
Type of action	Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
Registry reference	ACT_51647/2024 · ORD_68981/2024
Parties	Footbridge Group AB , Brunngård Group AB v. Imbox Protection A/S

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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 an order of 17 February 2025 (ORD_68981/2024, UPC_CFI_527/2024), Judge Stefan Johansson, sitting alone in the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division, closed the evidence preservation proceedings brought by Imbox Protection A/S against Brunngård Group AB and Footbridge Group AB in respect of EP 2 276 862, following the withdrawal of the application. He set the value at EUR 249,000, protected the defendants’ confidential exhibits and ordered Imbox to pay SEK 225,000 to each of them. The main interest lies in the ceiling on recoverable costs, applied as a single ceiling shared by all defendants.

Question

After an application to preserve evidence is withdrawn, how does the ceiling on representation costs apply where several defendants have been brought in?

Decision

The application, maintained after the court indicated that the defendants would be heard (Rule 194.1), was withdrawn on 26 November 2024 without objection (Rule 265). Exhibits 17 to 19, filed by the defendants and describing the functioning and structure of the EXPRO HUB product, may be used only in these proceedings, on pain of penalty payments. Imbox, as the unsuccessful party, bears the reasonable and proportionate costs. The EUR 38,000 ceiling for that value applies, under the Administrative Committee decision, regardless of the number of parties: it is a joint ceiling for all the defendants’ representation costs, with no ground to raise it, the case being simple and the withdrawal early. Each defendant, having claimed SEK 269,798, was awarded SEK 225,000, including expenses outside the ceiling.

Key points for practice

The ceiling on representation costs is shared by all defendants: it is not multiplied by the number of parties.
Withdrawing an application to preserve evidence after the court has announced that the defendants will be heard exposes the applicant to their costs.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Arts 58, 60(5) and 69
Rules of Procedure: Rules 152.2, 194.1, 194.5 and 265
Administrative Committee decision of 24 April 2023 on the scale of ceilings for recoverable costs: Art. 1(3)
Case law cited: No UPC decision is cited.

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.

Going further

Lexicon: Order to preserve evidence (UPC), Confidentiality club.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Evidence Before Argument: The French Weapon Foreign Patent Holders Forget (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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

claimantFootbridge Group ABFollow this party
claimantBrunngård Group ABFollow this party
defendantImbox Protection A/SFollow this party

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Application for preserving evidence pursuant to RoP192
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le juge clôt la procédure après retrait, fixe la valeur à 249 000 euros, restreint l'usage des pièces confidentielles et alloue 225 000 couronnes à chaque défenderesse, le plafond de 38 000 euros étant commun à toutes.
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 2 276 862 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 276 862`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet 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.