Reinhausen v Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment (CFI, UPC_CFI_1746/2026, 27 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 27 July 2026 given in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_1746/2026 and UPC_CFI_1747/2026, the Munich Local Division, on an application for review (Rule 197.3 RoP), supplements the inspection and preservation of evidence order it had made without hearing the other side on 20 May 2026 in favour of Reinhausen against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment at a trade fair in Berlin (EP 3 427 283). The applicant’s representatives are now bound to keep the findings of the inspection confidential, including towards their own client.

The order lays down a useful principle: where measures are ordered ex parte, the court must of its own motion secure the protection of confidential information, without the respondent having to identify its secrets, and an omission can be cured at the review stage.

Facts and procedure

Reinhausen owns EP 3 427 283, relating to a selector for an on-load tap changer, in force in Germany, France, Italy and Portugal. The opt-out was withdrawn on 12 May 2026 (paragraph 1). The respondent, based in China, exhibited a « DET-24kV » tap changer at the CWIEME fair in Berlin (paragraph 3). The order of 20 May 2026, served at the stand, allowed an expert, an assistant and a bailiff to inspect and dismantle the device, which was seized (paragraphs 5 and 6).

The respondent applied for review on 19 June 2026 (paragraph 7 wrongly refers to the applicant), seeking to extend the confidentiality obligation to the applicant’s representatives and to restrict use of the expert’s description (requests I and II). At the hearing of 20 July 2026 it withdrew its request on the handling of the seized object, subject to undertakings by the applicant, which the applicant accepted (paragraphs 8 to 10).

The applicable law

Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262 and 262A RoP allow the court to order confidentiality measures. Art. 60(1) UPCA makes measures to preserve evidence subject to the protection of confidential information being ensured. Where measures are ordered without hearing the respondent (Art. 60(5) UPCA and Rule 197.1 RoP), confidentiality measures must be provided for, unless the respondent quite exceptionally can have no interest in confidentiality (paragraphs 29 to 31). Rule 197.3 RoP allows an application for review within 30 days of execution of the measures.

Question

Can an application for review of an ex parte inspection order address the confidentiality measures alone and lead to the applicant’s representatives being bound to secrecy, without the respondent specifying its confidential information?

Decision

Yes. The application, filed on 19 June 2026 for measures executed on 20 May, is admissible. Confidentiality measures form part of the subject matter of the order and can be reviewed (paragraphs 17 to 20, Rules 196.1 and 197.3 RoP). On the merits, paragraph 10 of the order did not cover the applicant’s representatives, and the restrictions on use of the expert’s description do not protect technical details unrelated to infringement that may emerge during the inspection (paragraphs 23 to 27). Display of the device at the fair did not destroy the confidentiality of its internal workings, which sat behind Perspex and inside a casing (paragraph 33). The panel acknowledges that it inadvertently omitted that obligation (paragraph 34).

The time taken to seek review does not make the measure pointless, and the respondent need not identify its secrets, since no mechanism requires it and it does not know what the applicant may have perceived. The applicant suffers no prejudice, as infringement is to be shown by the expert’s report (paragraphs 36 to 41). The operative part amends paragraphs 10 and 12 of the order of 20 May 2026, supplements it with the parties’ undertakings (no communication with the expert, no further examination outside main proceedings) and otherwise upholds it. The statement that there had been no past contact with the expert is not included, since an order cannot provide assurances about the past (paragraph 44), no costs decision is made (paragraph 46).

Key points for practice

• An ex parte inspection order must bind to secrecy everyone attending the inspection, the applicant’s representatives included.
• A respondent seeking confidentiality measures on review need not describe the information it considers secret (paragraphs 38 to 40).
• Any further examination of the seized object belongs to the main action, to be brought within the non-extendable period of Rule 198.1 RoP (paragraph 45).
• Practical point: an applicant seeking a seizure at a trade fair should offer in its application a confidentiality undertaking by its own counsel, otherwise the respondent will obtain that extension on review.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 58 and 60(1) and (5)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9.4, 13, 189.2, 192, 196.1, 197.1, 197.3, 197.6, 198.1, 199, 262 and 262A

Related decisions

• Reinhausen v Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment, 27 July 2026, order of the same day in cases UPC_CFI_1751/2026 and UPC_CFI_1752/2026 (EP 3 427 284).

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.