MAGUIN v TIRU (CoA, 15 July 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 15 July 2025 (UPC_CoA_327/2025, APL_16749/2025), the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal brought by MAGUIN, the manufacturer of an incineration kiln, against the Paris Local Division’s order of 24 March 2025 refusing to set aside evidence preservation and inspection measures granted against it without a hearing, at TIRU’s request, on the basis of EP 3 178 578.

The order was handed down on the same day as the order dismissing the appeal of the kiln’s operator, VALINEA, on the same reasoning. For the manufacturer, it confirms that technical documentation may be seized ex parte, at the same time as the plant is inspected, where delay could allow digital data to be lost. It also separates urgency for evidence preservation from urgency for provisional measures and sets the limits of the applicant’s duty of candour.

Facts and procedure

On 17 December 2024 TIRU applied to the Paris Local Division for evidence preservation and inspection orders concerning an incineration kiln in Montbéliard, operated by VALINEA and built by MAGUIN (paragraphs 3 and 4). The orders of 23 December 2024 were executed at both sites on 14 January 2025 (paragraphs 5 and 6), and TIRU brought infringement actions on 18 February 2025 (paragraph 7).

On 12 February 2025 MAGUIN applied under Rules 197.3 and 197.4 for the measures to be set aside or, in the alternative, revised, disputing urgency, the risk of evidence being lost and TIRU’s candour (paragraph 8). The Local Division dismissed the application on 24 March 2025 (paragraph 9). MAGUIN appealed, also seeking the return of the items seized and of the sums deposited (paragraphs 10 and 11).

The applicable law

Art. 60(1) UPCA allows urgent evidence preservation measures before any action on the merits, subject to the protection of confidential information (paragraph 18), Art. 60(5) allows measures without hearing the other party where delay is likely to cause irreparable harm or there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed (paragraph 19). The court weighs urgency, whether the reasons for not hearing the defendant appear well founded and the probability of destruction (Rule 194.2, paragraph 22). The appeal is admissible under Rule 220.1(c) (paragraphs 16 and 17), and the Court reviews only whether the first instance judge exceeded their discretion or erred in law (paragraph 26).

Question

Should the measures ordered against MAGUIN without hearing it have been set aside for lack of urgency, absence of a risk of evidence being lost or a breach by TIRU of its duty of candour?

Decision

The appeal is dismissed. Inspecting the inside of the kiln required it to be stopped, and its entry into service would have prevented the descriptive seizure (paragraphs 31 and 32). Simultaneous measures at MAGUIN were needed to protect the digital documentation, since delay could allow data to be lost (paragraphs 33 and 34). The two-month gap after the bailiff’s record of a YouTube video of 11 October 2024 was reasonable, and the undue delay rule in Rule 211.4 does not apply to evidence preservation (paragraphs 35 and 36).

The risk is assessed by probability or demonstrable risk, not certainty, and the public service concession did not rule it out (paragraphs 38 to 40). Validity is not for the evidence preservation judge unless the presumption of validity is manifestly open to challenge, for instance after an opposition or revocation decision (paragraphs 43 and 44). Neither FR 2 350 136, cited in the description, nor the 1987 « Laurent Bouillet » kiln had to be disclosed, since assessing prior art is a matter for the merits or provisional measures judge (paragraphs 46 to 49). The request to set aside fails (paragraph 50), and the Court made no ruling on costs (paragraph 51).

Key points for practice

• The manufacturer of equipment may face an ex parte seizure of technical documentation alongside the inspection at the operator’s premises where digital data may be lost (paragraphs 33 and 34).
• The undue delay test in Rule 211.4 remains specific to provisional measures (paragraph 36).
• An ex parte applicant need not address validity or prior art, absent a parallel decision or manifest relevance (paragraphs 43 to 49).
• Practical point: where measures target several players in the same chain, each addressee challenges its own order, here the two appeals were decided separately, on the same day.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 60(1) and (5)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194, 196, 197, 209.2(b), 211.4 and 220.1(c)

Directive 2004/48/EC

Art. 7

Related decisions

• TIRU v MAGUIN, 23 December 2024, evidence preservation order granted without hearing MAGUIN.
• TIRU, 24 March 2025, Paris Local Division order refusing to set the measures aside, under appeal.
• VALINEA ENERGIE v TIRU, 15 July 2025, parallel order dismissing the kiln operator’s appeal.

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.