Opens in a new tab

Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 13 June 2023)

Date13 June 2023
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Local Division
Type of actionApplication for provisional measures
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_127/2023
Registry referenceORD_500663/2023 · UPC_CFI_127/2023
PartiesOERLIKON TEXTILE G.M.B.H. & CO. K.G v. HIMSON ENGINEERING PRIVATE LIMITED
LanguageItalian

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 19 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

On Oerlikon’s application to preserve evidence concerning two textile machines exhibited by Himson at the ITMA trade fair in Rho, Milan, the Milan Local Division ordered, ex parte and without security, the collection of all technical, promotional and commercial documentation relating to the machines at Himson’s stand, by a court-appointed expert assisted by a judicial officer, with notice to the defendant only at the moment of execution. Access to the collected material was limited to two of the applicant’s counsel and one technical expert, its use was confined to the future proceedings on the merits absent a new court order, and the defendant was given thirty days from execution to request a review. At this summary examination stage the court found, on the basis of the applicant’s brochures and consultant report, circumstantial elements of reproduction of the patented features of EP 2 145 848 B1, it made no finding of infringement.

Why it matters

This order, the earliest preservation of evidence order in the corpus reviewed, dated in the first weeks of the Court’s activity, set out the analytical grid the Milan division applies to trade fair seizures: territorial competence based on the place of the alleged or threatened infringement, a fumus boni iuris assessment resting on the presumption of validity of the unopposed patent, urgency derived from the imminent end of the fair, and risk of evidence loss where the respondent is based abroad and the documentation is easily concealed or destroyed. The proportionality reasoning, that the measure only acquires proof and does not restrict the respondent’s activity, and the waiver of security in view of the applicant’s financial standing, remain useful reference points for applicants seeking ex parte measures on short notice.

Practical point

Trade fairs create a narrow window: the application must demonstrate why the respondent cannot be heard before the fair closes, and should propose concrete safeguards (restricted access, execution outside public opening hours) to support the ex parte grant.

Summary prepared by Dhenne Avocats. Only the official text of the decision is authoritative.

Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Confidentiality club, Local and central divisions (UPC), Order to preserve evidence (UPC), Application for a preliminary injunction.

Dhenne Avocats blog: The Transitional Period and the UPC: Coordinating Two Judicial Orders.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction, Valeo v. Bosch and the Redistribution of Cases Within the UPC (Kluwer Patent Blog).

Source and translations

Official source
Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language
Italian from the language of proceedings
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_127/2023 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

  1. 13 June 2023 OERLIKON TEXTILE v Himson Engineering (CFI, 13 June 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_127/2023

    L'extrême urgence n'est pas caractérisée, une décision restant possible avant la fin du salon. La demande est renvoyée au juge président de la division.

  2. 13 June 2023 Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 13 June 2023) Application for provisional measures · UPC_CFI_127/2023

What the record states

Nature of the act
Application for provisional measures
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
On Oerlikon's application to preserve evidence concerning two textile machines exhibited by Himson at the ITMA trade fair in Rho, Milan, the Milan Local Division ordered, ex parte and without security, the collection of all technical, promotional and commercial documentation relating to the machines at Himson's stand, by a court-appointed expert assisted by a judicial officer, with notice to the defendant only at the moment of execution. Access to the collected material was limited to two of the applicant's counsel and one technical expert, its use was confined to the future proceedings on the merits absent a new court order, and the defendant was given thirty days from execution to request a review. At this summary examination stage the court found, on the basis of the applicant's brochures and consultant report, circumstantial elements of reproduction of the patented features of EP 2 145 848 B1, it made no finding of infringement.
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

  • EP 2 145 848 mentioned in: summary of the decision, Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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 2 145 848
False twist texturing machine
recorded proprietor: Oerlikon Textile GmbH and Co KG
Patent at issue according to the summary or official headnote
Also mentioned in 19 other decision(s): Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 4 November 2024) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 9 December 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CoA, 30 October 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 9 September 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 29 July 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 9 May 2025) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CFI, 20 February 2025) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 16 January 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
mentioned in: summary of the decision, 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.