TIRU v MAGUIN (CFI, 24 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 24 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_813/2024, ORD_9276/2025), the Paris Local Division (Judges Lignières, presiding and rapporteur, Gillet and Lopes) rejected the request of MAGUIN, a manufacturer of rotary kilns, to set aside the order of 23 December 2024 that had authorised, without hearing it, a seizure and inspection at the request of TIRU, proprietor of EP 3 178 578. Issued on the same day as the order concerning the furnace operator, VALINEA ENERGIE, it holds that a mere risk of loss of evidence suffices and justifies executing both seizures simultaneously.

Facts and procedure

TIRU, part of the PAPREC group since 2021, owns a patent for a waste incineration plant and associated method, in force in France, the United Kingdom and Poland (paragraphs 1 to 5). Having discovered in October 2024, through a YouTube video, a furnace built by MAGUIN and operated by VALINEA ENERGIE, it filed on 17 December 2024, before any action on the merits, two applications to preserve evidence. The two ex parte orders of 23 December 2024, limited to establishing the alleged infringement, were executed simultaneously on 14 January 2025 in Charmes and Montbéliard. The reports were filed on 20 and 21 January 2025 and sorted by an expert, confidential documents being available only to a legal team and two people per company (paragraphs 6 to 10). On 12 February 2025 MAGUIN sought to have the order set aside, alleging lack of urgency, no risk of destruction of evidence and concealment of information. The hearing took place on 10 March 2025 (paragraphs 11 and 12).

The applicable law

The request falls under Rule 197.4. Measures may be ordered without hearing the other party, in particular where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed (Article 60(5) UPCA, Rule 197.1), and an applicant proceeding ex parte must disclose all material facts (Rule 192.3, paragraph 13).

Question

Did TIRU breach its duty of candour, did a risk of loss of evidence justify not hearing the manufacturer, and was urgency established?

Decision

On candour, MAGUIN accused TIRU of withholding prior art, the 1987 « Laurent Bouillet » furnace, and technical documents. The Division stated that the judge ordering the seizure is not the judge of validity and noted that none of the information TIRU had provided was disputed. No breach was shown (paragraphs 14 to 20).

On risk, the rules do not require proof that loss is certain (paragraph 25). Citing C-KORE v NOVAWELL, the Division accepted that the digital format of documents does not in itself establish a risk (paragraph 26), but the duty to keep the manufacturer’s technical file does not guarantee that it will be complied with, and a risk of loss, even partial, suffices (paragraphs 24 and 25). Above all, the two seizures were inseparable: the imminent commissioning of the furnace would have made the descriptive seizure extremely difficult, which justified executing them simultaneously, and the measure remained proportionate, being limited to establishing infringement and protected by a narrow confidentiality club (paragraphs 27 to 31).

On urgency, the video, posted in August 2024, had only 77 views, and TIRU was not shown to have seen it before October 2024, the competitive context relied on by MAGUIN in fact supported simultaneous execution, and two months to prepare the application is reasonable (paragraphs 32 to 36). The judge had in any event found ordinary urgency and rejected extreme urgency (paragraph 37). The request to set aside was rejected (paragraph 39), and the order may be appealed (paragraph 40).

Key points for practice

• An ex parte measure requires a risk of loss of evidence, not certainty that it will disappear.
• A statutory duty to keep technical documentation does not in itself remove the risk of loss.
• Concurrent seizures at the manufacturer and at the operator may be justified by the imminent commissioning of the plant.
• Practical point: an applicant should date its knowledge of the infringement precisely and document the commissioning timetable of the targeted installation.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 58, 60(1) and (5) and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Preamble (paragraphs 3 to 5) and Rules 192.3, 196.1, 197.1, 197.4, 220.1(c), 224.2(b) and 262A

Case law cited

C-KORE SYSTEMS v NOVAWELL, Paris Local Division, 1 March 2024, TIRU v VALINEA ENERGIE, Paris Local Division, 24 March 2025

Related decisions

• TIRU v MAGUIN, 23 December 2024, ex parte order for preservation of evidence and inspection under challenge.

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.