N.J. DIFFUSION v GISELA MAYER (CFI, 20 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 20 January 2025, the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Local Division, Camille Lignières, dismissed the request by N.J. DIFFUSION, proprietor of EP 2 404 516 and claimant in the infringement action against GISELA MAYER (UPC_CFI_363/2024), to hold the interim conference in person so as to examine under strong lighting two wigs lodged with the Registry, photograph them and enlarge the images. The order clarifies how an evidential request is characterised and confirms that the interim conference is held online as a rule.

Question

Is a request to examine physical exhibits at an in-person interim conference admissible, and does it justify departing from holding the conference online?

Decision

The means of evidence before the UPC are listed non-exhaustively in Rule 170 RoP and the judge may recharacterise the request: failure to invoke Rule 201 RoP does not make it inadmissible, all the more so as the measure consists of mere observations rather than experiments. The request was not late, the conference being set for 7 April 2025. It was nonetheless dismissed as unjustified, since enlarged photographs were already contained in the claimant’s reply. The conference will therefore take place online, in line with the principle stated in Rule 101.1 RoP as referred to in the order, on 7 April 2025, the order may be reviewed by the panel (Rule 333 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Observing exhibits is not an experiment within Rule 201 RoP, but the request must add something to what the pleadings already show.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 101.1, 170, 201 and 333

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.