Opens in a new tab

IQIP v TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies (CFI, UPC_CFI_721/2025, 29 April 2026)

Date29 April 2026
CourtCFI
DivisionThe Hague (NL) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_721/2025
Registry referenceUPC-CFI-721/2025
PartiesIQIP Holding B.V. v. TMS Technical & Maritime Supplies B.V.

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

In an order of 29 April 2026 in the infringement action UPC_CFI_721/2025 and the counterclaim UPC_CFI_1695/2025, the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division partly grants TMS’s request for production of evidence under Rule 190 RoP. IQIP Holding and IQIP B.V. must produce the technical documentation of the plugs used in 2008 on the Rhyl Flats and Gunfleet Sands projects, relied on as public prior use against EP 2 148 123, under a confidentiality regime. Commercial documents are refused: the order shows the proportionality review applied to an overly broad request.

Question

To what extent must the patentee and a third-party group company produce evidence relating to a prior use alleged by the defendant?

Decision

The judge sets out the cumulative conditions of Article 59(1) UPCA and Rule 190.1 RoP (paragraphs 6 and 7). Since IQIP did not dispute TMS’s entitlement to the technical documents, their production, limited to seven listed features, is held proportionate and ordered within two weeks, with leave to redact matters unrelated to the prior use (paragraphs 8 and 12). Documents whose existence or possession is disputed are excluded for lack of contrary evidence, and invoices or contracts become unnecessary since IQIP does not dispute delivery before the priority date (paragraphs 9, 10 and 22). The confidentiality regime proposed by IQIP, which was not contested, is ordered (paragraph 11), and an exchange of pleadings limited to the prior use is scheduled.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Arts 41(3), 42 and 59(1)
Rules of Procedure
Rules 190.1, 190.7, 262 and 262A
Directive 2004/48/EC
Art. 3

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: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (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_721/2025 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

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
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La production de la documentation technique sur les bouchons invoqués comme usage antérieur est ordonnée sous confidentialité, les pièces commerciales et les documents dont la détention est contestée étant refusés.
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 2 148 123Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)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.