Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 6 June 2024)
| Date | 6 June 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Local Division |
| Type of action | Infringement Action |
| Registry reference | ACT_549585/2023 · ORD_598364/2023 |
| Parties | Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG v. Bhagat Textile Engineers |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By a procedural order of 6 June 2024 (UPC_CFI_241/2023, ACT_549585/2023, ORD_598364/2023) the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division, Alima Zana, in Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG’s infringement action on EP 2 145 848 against Bhagat Textile Engineers, gave the parties access to the expert report resulting from the evidence preservation carried out at the ITMA fair in Rho in June 2023, refused an information order for the time being and set the value of the dispute provisionally at EUR 750,000.
Question
May the results of an evidence preservation measure that has become final be disclosed to the parties in the main action, and is an information order on sales warranted where there is no evidence of marketing?
Decision
As the defendant did not request review of the preservation order within the Rule 197.3 RoP period, that order is final (paragraph 1.2). No confidential information having been identified, access to the report and the seized material is granted to both parties, for use confined to the main proceedings between them (Rules 196.2 and 199 RoP) (paragraphs 1.1, 1.3 and 1.4). The information order on distribution channels and sales was deferred to any proceedings for the determination of damages: the defendant stated that it had sold nothing and no evidence to the contrary was produced, so the measure was not necessary in light of the principle of proportionality (paragraph 2). The value of the dispute was set provisionally at EUR 750,000 under the Rule 370.6 RoP criteria, taking into account a single four-day display at a trade fair (paragraph 3).
Key points for practice
- Practical point: absent a request for review within the Rule 197.3 RoP period, the preservation order becomes final and its results enter the main proceedings, an information order may be deferred until a sale is shown.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Arts. 60 and 69(3)
- Rules of Procedure
- Rules 192 et seq., 196.2, 197.3, 199, 262A, 333 and 370.6
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.
Decisions in the same proceedings
Going further
Lexicon: Patent infringement action.
Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).
Source and translations
- Official source
- Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
- Original language
- not recorded
- Translation available
- no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
- Date checked
- not recorded
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
Parties
- defendantBhagat Textile Engineers9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantOerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG18 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Infringement Action
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les parties peuvent accéder au rapport de saisie pour l'action au fond. L'injonction d'information est différée faute de preuve de ventes. La valeur du litige est fixée provisoirement à 750 000 euros.
- 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 848mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 4 November 2024) cited in this record
Patents and standards
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.