Reinhausen v Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment (CFI, UPC_CFI_1747/2026, 27 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 27 July 2026, given in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_1746/2026 and UPC_CFI_1747/2026, panel 2 of the Munich Local Division ruled on the request for review (Rule 197.3 RoP) filed by Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment against the inspection and preservation order granted ex parte on 20 May 2026 to Reinhausen at the CWIEME fair in Berlin (EP 3 427 283 B1). The Division maintained the order but extended the duty of confidentiality to the applicant’s representatives and the bailiff, including towards the applicant itself. The point is clear: where a measure is ordered without hearing the defendant, the protection of confidential information must be provided for of the Court’s own motion, without the defendant having to identify its secrets, and an omission on that point can be cured on review.

Facts and procedure

Reinhausen is sole proprietor of EP 3 427 283 B1, which concerns a selector for an on-load tap changer and is in force in Germany, France, Italy and Portugal. The opt-out was withdrawn in May 2026 (paragraph 1). The defendant exhibited a « DET-24kV » tap changer at the CWIEME fair in Berlin from 19 to 21 May 2026 (paragraph 3). Seised on 19 May, the Division ordered on 20 May 2026, ex parte, the inspection, dismantling and measurement of the device by an expert assisted by a bailiff. The order was served at the fair and the device seized (paragraphs 4 to 6). By a submission of 19 June 2026, the defendant sought amendment of paragraphs 10 and 12 of the order on confidentiality (paragraphs 7, 8 and 18). The defendant did not challenge the measure on the merits (paragraph 13).

The applicable law

Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262 and 262A RoP give the Court discretion to restrict access to evidence (paragraph 29). Art. 60(1) UPCA makes the preservation of evidence subject to the protection of confidential information (paragraph 30). Rule 197.3 RoP allows the defendant to request a review within 30 days of execution of the measure, and Rule 197.6 RoP keeps confidentiality in place if the order is modified or revoked (paragraphs 18 and 39).

Question

Can the review of an ex parte inspection order be confined to the confidentiality measures and lead to the applicant’s representatives being bound to secrecy, without the defendant specifying its confidential information?

Decision

The request was admissible: filed on 19 June 2026 for a measure executed on 20 May, it was in time (paragraph 18), the defendant had a legitimate interest since the order did not provide the protection sought (paragraph 19), and a review may target the confidentiality measures alone (paragraph 20). On the merits, paragraph 10 did not cover the applicant’s representatives, and the confidentiality attached to the report did not protect information obtained during the inspection beyond the report (paragraphs 24 and 25). Where a measure is ordered ex parte, the defendant cannot put forward its interests, so confidentiality measures must be ordered without a specific showing (paragraph 31). Display at the fair did not destroy confidentiality, as the device stood behind plexiglass in a housing that concealed its interior (paragraph 33), leaving out the representatives was an oversight by the panel (paragraph 34). The defendant need not identify its secrets (paragraphs 38 to 40), and the applicant suffers no prejudice, since information relevant to proving infringement will be in the report, which has its own disclosure mechanism (paragraph 41).

The Division therefore amended paragraphs 10 and 12: the expert, the assistants, the applicant’s representatives and the bailiff must keep confidential, towards the applicant, its employees and third parties, information that comes to light, subject to release by the Court or the defendant, the representatives have access to the report once it is filed but may not pass it on. By agreement of the parties, it added a ban on communicating with the expert and on further examinations, unless ordered by the court hearing the merits (paragraphs 43 to 45). The other requests were dismissed, costs being left to the main proceedings (paragraph 46).

Key points for practice

• An ex parte order to preserve evidence must provide of its own motion for confidentiality measures that also bind the applicant’s representatives.
• A Rule 197.3 review may be confined to the confidentiality arrangements, without challenging the conditions for the measure.
• The defendant need not identify its confidential information at this stage. Disclosure of the report follows its own procedure.
• Practical point: a defendant hit by an inspection at a trade fair should check, within 30 days of execution, the exact scope of the confidentiality duties and, if needed, ask for them to be extended to the opposing advisers.

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 Co., 27 July 2026, the same order published in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_1746/2026.

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.