HyGear v Topsoe (CFI, 20 March 2026)
| Date | 20 March 2026 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 |
| Case number(s) | UPC_CFI_1849/2025 |
| Registry reference | UPC_CFI_1849/2025 |
| Parties | HyGear B.V., SYPOX GmbH - Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH - Technical University of Munich v. Topsoe A/S |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Case timeline
- 10 December 2025 : Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 10 December 2025) UPC_CFI_1849/2025
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
In an order of 20 March 2026 (UPC_CFI_1849/2025), the President of the Court of First Instance, after consulting the panel of the Düsseldorf Local Division, grants HyGear’s request and replaces German with English, the language of EP 3 802 413, in the inspection and evidence preservation proceedings brought by Topsoe. The change is granted despite the objection of the Technical University of Munich, which did not explain how it would be adversely affected.
Question
Should the language of proceedings be changed to the language of the patent on grounds of fairness (Art. 49(5) UPCA and Rule 323 RoP) in multi-party inspection proceedings?
Decision
All relevant circumstances are taken into account, including the parties’ positions and in particular the defendant’s, which is decisive where the balance is even. HyGear, Topsoe and SYPOX work in English, the parties are of comparable size and resources, and most of the evidence is in English, the predominant language of hydrogen plant technology. The balance favours HyGear despite the domicile of three of the five parties, all the more so as the proceedings are expedited and the change is not likely to slow them down. The order is not conditional on any translation or interpretation arrangements and may be appealed within 15 days (Art. 73(2)(a) UPCA and Rule 220(c) RoP).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a party opposing a change of language must explain specifically how it would be harmed, an objection of principle carries no weight in the balance.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts 49(1), (2) and (5) and 73(2)(a)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 192, 199, 220(c) and 323
- Case law cited
- Court of Appeal, 17 April 2024 (UPC_CoA_101/2024), Court of Appeal, 5 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_207/2024), Court of Appeal, 18 September 2024 (UPC_CoA_354/2024)
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: Order to preserve evidence (UPC).
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
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
- claimantSYPOX GmbH5 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantTopsoe A/S9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantJosef Kerner Energiewirtschafts GmbH3 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantHyGear B.V.Follow this party
- claimantTechnical University of MunichFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
- 10 December 2025 Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 10 December 2025) Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 · UPC_CFI_1849/2025
La division autorise sans audition l'inspection d'une installation de vaporeformage découverte lors d'une première inspection, y compris l'ouverture du réacteur et l'export des données de procédé, contre les trois sociétés impliquées, sans exiger de garantie.
- 20 March 2026 HyGear v Topsoe (CFI, 20 March 2026) Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199 · UPC_CFI_1849/2025
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application for an Order for inspection pursuant to RoP199
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- La langue de procédure devient l'anglais, langue du brevet, sans condition de traduction ou d'interprétation.
- 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 3 802 413mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 10 December 2025) cited in this record
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 3 802 413Hydrogen production by steam methane reforming recorded proprietor: Topsoe AS | Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 8 other decision(s): SYPOX v Topsoe (CFI, 27 August 2026) · Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 26 August 2026) · SYPOX v Topsoe (CFI, 27 July 2026) · Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 4 May 2026) · Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 10 December 2025) · Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 26 November 2025) · Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 25 November 2025) · Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 12 October 2026) | not recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · European Patent Register existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically) 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.