Mammoet Holding v P.T.S. Machinery (CFI, 22 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 22 January 2025 (UPC_CFI_16/2025), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division (Judge Kokke), sitting alone, granted in part and without hearing the defendant measures to preserve evidence sought by Mammoet Holding against P.T.S. Machinery, a former supplier, under unitary patent EP 4 171 996 (jack cradles for modular heavy-lift trailers). The order applies indirect infringement (Art. 26 UPCA) at a stage where the standard of proof is lower than for provisional measures, and protects the defendant’s trade secrets.

Facts and procedure

In November 2020 Mammoet ordered six jack cradles from PTS on the basis of confidential drawings. In November 2024 it found a LinkedIn post by PTS’s director showing a mechanical construction it considers to fall within claim 1 of the patent, granted on 28 August 2024 with unitary effect registered on 8 October 2024. Following a cease-and-desist letter, PTS admitted on 9 December 2024 that it had produced, offered and supplied the item, while denying infringement and refusing to identify its customer. The application was filed on 15 January 2025, Mammoet announcing a merits action before the same division.

The applicable law

Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 199 RoP allow the Court, before any merits action, to order a detailed description or seizure of evidence of infringement, where appropriate without hearing the other party if there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed (Art. 60(5)). Art. 26(1) prohibits supplying or offering means relating to an essential element of the invention where the supplier knows, or should have known, that they are suitable and intended for putting it into effect.

Question

Does likely indirect infringement by a former supplier justify measures to preserve evidence ordered without hearing that supplier?

Decision

The division found jurisdiction under Art. 32(1)(c) UPCA, given the intended action, PTS’s Dutch seat and the alleged production in the Netherlands (paragraph 13). As registered proprietor, Mammoet was entitled to apply. The grant sufficed at this stage to show validity, no doubt having come to the Court’s attention, while the opposition period was still running (paragraph 17).

The judge accepted that the item was likely a jack cradle within claims 1 and 4 (paragraphs 18 and 19) and that the requirements of Art. 26 were met: an essential element, production in the Netherlands, admitted delivery to a customer, and knowledge derived from the confidential drawings and an overall drawing (paragraphs 20 to 22). The degree of certainty required is lower than for provisional measures under Rule 211, since preservation also serves to gather evidence, and the post kept online after grant showed a continuing threat (paragraph 23). Urgency followed from Mammoet’s prompt reaction (paragraph 27), and PTS’s unwillingness to cooperate, together with the ease of erasing digital data, justified proceeding without a hearing (paragraphs 26, 28 and 29). The balance of interests favoured the applicant, PTS already knowing the invention and its secrets being protected by restricted access (paragraph 30).

The measures were granted in part (paragraph 31): a detailed description with photographs, copies of technical and promotional documents and of digital data, by a bailiff assisted by an expert from De Vries & Metman, with no Mammoet presence. The report is first available to PTS’s representatives only, and to Mammoet’s from the fifth working day unless confidentiality is requested (paragraph 41). A penalty of EUR 5,000 per hour, capped at EUR 100,000, sanctions obstruction, and enforcement is conditional on security of EUR 20,000 (paragraphs 46 and 47).

Key points for practice

• The threshold of likely infringement is lower for preservation of evidence than for provisional measures.
• Indirect infringement may ground a preservation order where the supplier knew the intended use of the item, here through confidential drawings received from the patentee.
• The risk of digital data being erased, coupled with a refusal to cooperate, justifies an ex parte order.
• Practical point: a prompt reaction once the facts are discovered and a documented cease-and-desist letter support urgency, access to the report goes first to the representatives of the party subject to the measure.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 26(1), Art. 32(1)(c), Art. 33(1), Art. 58, Art. 60 and Art. 73(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 18, 190, 192 to 199, 211, 220.1, 224.2(b) and 354.3

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.