Oerlikon Textile G.m.b.H. & Co. K.G. v Bhagat Group (CFI, 14 June 2023)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 14 June 2023 (UPC_CFI_141/2023, proceedings no. 500982/2023), the Milan Local Division, sitting as a single judge appointed on grounds of extreme urgency (Rule 194.3 RoP), allowed Oerlikon Textile, without hearing the respondent, to have the technical, promotional and commercial documentation relating to a machine alleged to infringe EP 2 145 848 collected at Bhagat Group’s stand at the ITMA 2023 fair in Rho. Given in Italian on the eve of the fair’s closing day, the order requires no security and shows how quickly the measure can be obtained while a fair is under way.

Facts and procedure

The applicant, proprietor of a patent for a false twist texturing machine validated in Italy among other states, found that Bhagat Group, an Indian company, was presenting a machine at the ITMA 2023 fair held in Rho from 8 to 14 June 2023. It relied on photographs, a poster, a video accessible via QR code and a party technical opinion. No EPO opposition had been filed and no protective letter was on the CMS.

The applicable law

The UPC has jurisdiction as the patent was not opted out (Art. 83(3) UPCA), and the Milan Division is competent as the place of infringement (Arts. 32(1)(c) and 33 UPCA) (paragraphs 1.1 and 1.2). The measure falls under Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 197 RoP, Rule 197.1 RoP and Art. 60(5) UPCA allowing a decision without hearing the respondent.

Question

Were the conditions met for an ex parte measure to preserve evidence at a fair ending the next day, and should security be required?

Decision

The patent enjoys a presumption of validity, no opposition being pending (paragraph 1.4(a)), and the material produced appears prima facie to support infringement (paragraph 1.4(b)). Extreme urgency was established, as the fair was ending the following day (paragraph 2.1). Hearing the respondent was not feasible in that time, and there was a risk of evidence being hidden or destroyed, the respondent being based abroad (paragraph 2.2). The balance of the respective risks was found proportionate (paragraph 4.1). No security was required: the measure is not in itself punitive and the applicant belongs to a large group (paragraph 4.6), execution should preferably take place outside busy hours (paragraph 4.7). An appointed expert, assisted by a bailiff, copies the documentation found at the stand in whatever form. Only two lawyers and one technical adviser of the applicant may attend and access the information gathered, disclosure to third parties being prohibited. The report must be filed by 15 June 2023 at the latest, and its results may be used only in the merits proceedings. The order is immediately enforceable under Italian law. The respondent may request a review within 30 days of execution (Rule 197.3 RoP).

Key points for practice

• A foreign defendant’s presence at a trade fair in a Contracting Member State supports both local jurisdiction and the extreme urgency of an ex parte measure.
• The Division may waive security for a purely descriptive measure that has no punitive effect on the defendant.
• Access to the information gathered is restricted to the applicant’s advisers, which protects the defendant’s secrets without delaying the measure.
• Practical point: checking that no protective letter is on the CMS and quickly gathering visual evidence from the stand are enough to file a useful application before a fair closes.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 32(1)(c), 33(1)(a), 41, 42, 58, 60(1) and (5) and 83(3)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 5, 192, 194.3, 194.4, 196, 197.1 to 197.3, 275.1, 276.1 and 371.3

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.