Mammoet v P.T.S Machinery (CFI, 19 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 19 February 2025 (ORD_7979/2025, UPC_CFI_16/2025), Judge Margot Kokke, judge rapporteur in The Hague Local Division, granted four employees of Mammoet Holding B.V. access to the expert’s report and its attachments, drawn up after a seizure carried out at the premises of P.T.S. Machinery B.V. to preserve evidence relating to EP 4 171 996. The order shows how the initial confidentiality club may be widened to the applicant’s own staff where the risk to the defendant’s secrets is low.

Question

Should a confidentiality club limited to the applicant’s representatives be extended to named employees of the applicant for access to the seizure report?

Decision

The order of 22 January 2025 had reserved access to the report to Mammoet’s representatives, any extension to other persons falling under its paragraph 42. The judge noted that the directors of the defendant, which was unrepresented, had cooperated with the seizure without objecting or requesting confidentiality (paragraph 9), that only documents relating to deliveries to a single customer had been seized (paragraph 10), and that confidential financial information had been redacted by the expert (paragraph 11). The risk of trade secrets being revealed was low or non-existent (paragraph 12), and Mammoet showed that all four individuals needed the report to assess infringement, identify the customer and decide on further steps, without disproportionate prejudice to the defendant (paragraph 14). Access was granted, subject to the same use restrictions and confidentiality obligations as the representatives (paragraph 13).

Key points for practice

• The applicant’s staff may be given access to the seizure report under Rule 9 where the defendant has not sought confidentiality and sensitive data have been redacted.
• The applicant must justify, for each named person, the need for access in light of the next steps following the seizure.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 192 and 196.1

Directive (EU) 2016/943

cited

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited, apart from the earlier order of 22 January 2025 in the same proceedings (ORD_3693/2025).

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.