Opens in a new tab

Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 6 June 2024)

Date6 June 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Registry referenceACT_549585/2023 · ORD_598364/2023
PartiesOerlikon 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

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
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 19 other decision(s): Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 4 November 2024) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 13 June 2023) · 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)
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: 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.