Reinhausen v Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment (CFI, UPC_CFI_1751/2026, 27 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 27 July 2026, issued in German in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_1751/2026 and UPC_CFI_1752/2026, the Munich Local Division, ruling on a request for review under Rule 197.3 RoP, supplemented the confidentiality provisions of an inspection and preservation of evidence order made without hearing the defendant on 20 May 2026. The representatives of Reinhausen, proprietor of unitary patent EP 3 427 284 for an on-load tap changer, are now bound to keep confidential what the inspection of Shanghai Huaming’s device, seized at a Berlin trade fair, revealed. The order matters in practice: where measures are ordered ex parte, confidentiality measures are required in principle, and the defendant need not identify in advance the information it seeks to protect.

Facts and procedure

Shanghai Huaming exhibited an on-load tap changer at the CWIEME trade fair in Berlin from 19 to 21 May 2026 (paragraph 3). Seised on 19 May, the division ordered inspection and preservation of evidence the next day without hearing the defendant. The order was served at the fair and the device seized (paragraphs 5 and 6). On 19 June 2026 the defendant requested a review limited to the confidentiality provisions (paragraphs 10 and 12 of the order) (paragraphs 7 and 8). At the hearing, held by videoconference on 20 July 2026, it withdrew a further request on condition, accepted by the applicant, that there be no contact with the expert and no further examination (paragraphs 9 and 10). The panel was presided over by Daniel Voß, as judge-rapporteur, sitting with Georg Werner and Thomas Adocker.

The applicable law

Measures to preserve evidence and inspection orders are governed by Art. 60 UPCA and Rules 192 to 199 RoP. Art. 60(1) UPCA makes them subject to the protection of confidential information. Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262 and 262A RoP provide the basis for protective measures. Review of an ex parte order must be requested within thirty days of its execution (Rule 197.3 RoP).

Question

Can a defendant, by way of review, have the confidentiality obligations of an ex parte inspection order extended to the applicant’s representatives and the disclosure of the expert report restricted?

Decision

The request was filed in time and was admissible, and a review may target the confidentiality measures alone without challenging the basis of the order (paragraphs 18 to 20). The original order had a gap: its paragraph 10 did not cover the applicant’s representatives, and the other provisions did not protect information gathered beyond the report (paragraphs 23 to 27). Where measures are ordered without hearing the defendant under Art. 60(5) UPCA and Rule 197.1 RoP, confidentiality measures are mandatory unless there is clearly no interest in secrecy (paragraph 31). Such an interest existed, as the inside of the device, behind Plexiglas and in a housing, was not publicly accessible: exhibiting it at the fair did not amount to a waiver (paragraphs 32 and 33). Leaving out the representatives was an oversight by the division (paragraph 34). Lateness was no bar, and the defendant did not have to designate the confidential material in advance (paragraphs 36 to 40), the applicant suffered no prejudice, since the relevant content was in the report, which has its own release procedure (paragraph 41). The division therefore amended paragraphs 10 and 12: the representatives may see the report before the decision on its release, without disclosing its content to their client or to third parties. It added, by agreement of the parties, a prohibition on contact with the expert and on further examination, and otherwise upheld the order.

Key points for practice

• An ex parte inspection order should in principle include confidentiality measures that also bind the applicant’s representatives (paragraphs 31 and 34).
• Exhibiting a device at a trade fair does not forfeit protection for information on internal parts that are not visible (paragraphs 32 and 33).
• A review under Rule 197.3 RoP may be confined to the confidentiality measures (paragraph 20).
• Practical point: a defendant subject to an inspection need not identify its trade secrets at the outset to obtain protection, since the sifting takes place when the report is released (paragraphs 38 to 41).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 58 and 60(1) and (5)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.4, 189.2, 192, 196.1, 197.1, 197.3, 197.6, 198.1, 199, 262 and 262A

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.