TIRU v MAGUIN (CFI, 23 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 23 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_813/2024, ORD_67655/2024), the Paris Local Division, sitting as a single judge (Judge Lignières), authorised TIRU, without hearing the defendant, to carry out measures to preserve evidence and an inspection at MAGUIN’s premises in Charmes, on the basis of EP 3 178 578 on a waste incineration installation. The measures were limited to evidence of the existence of the alleged infringement. Searching for its origin, extent and the damage caused was refused. The order illustrates how the Paris Local Division distinguishes urgency from extreme urgency and reviews proportionality in ex parte proceedings.

Facts and procedure

In October 2024 TIRU discovered, through an online video, an incineration furnace supplied by MAGUIN to VALINEA ÉNERGIE in Montbéliard, due to start operating in the first quarter of 2025, an online bailiff’s report was drawn up on 11 October 2024. The application, filed on 17 December 2024 before any action on the merits, concerned claims 1 to 15 of the patent, mainly claims 1 and 15. A parallel application targeted the VALINEA ÉNERGIE site (UPC_CFI_814/2024).

The applicable law

Jurisdiction rested on Articles 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b) and 60(1) UPCA. Ex parte measures are governed by Art. 60(5) and (6) UPCA and Rules 192 to 199: the applicant must present the reasonably available evidence of infringement, show urgency and a risk that evidence will be destroyed, and the measures must be proportionate. Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 196.1(d) ground the protection of confidential information.

Question

Can a patentee unable to establish every claimed feature from public material obtain, without hearing the other side, a seizure and an inspection, and to what extent?

Decision

The court found it had jurisdiction, as the patent is in force in France where MAGUIN has its seat (section 1), and noted the intended action for direct infringement (section 2.2). The reasonably available evidence made it probable that several features of claim 1 (1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6) were reproduced, and consequently claim 15, while features 1.3, 1.5, 1.7 and 1.8 required an inspection (section 3.2). Urgency was found in view of the planned start-up, but not extreme urgency, so the single judge could deal with the application (section 4.1). The risk that evidence, especially digital data, would be destroyed justified proceeding without a hearing (section 4.2).

On proportionality, given the competitive context and the costly installation, the measures were limited to the existence of infringement (section 6.1). The appointed expert, Mr Tranvouez, from the list of experts, is assisted by a bailiff and an IT specialist (section 6.2), TIRU’s representative, bound to secrecy even towards his client, may attend only the preservation steps and no TIRU employee may be present. The measures must be carried out by 17 January 2025, after security of EUR 10,000 is evidenced before 31 December 2024, the report, due within seven days, may be used only in the merits proceedings, which must be brought within the time limit of Art. 60(8) UPCA and Rule 198. Costs were reserved.

Key points for practice

• An applicant may obtain an inspection for the features it cannot establish from public material, provided it shows that the others are probably reproduced.
• The Paris Local Division distinguishes urgency, which allows the single judge to decide, from extreme urgency, which is for the standing judge.
• Ex parte measures may be confined to evidence of the existence of infringement, its extent and the damage being left to the merits proceedings.
• Practical point: set out in the application, feature by feature, what is established and what requires inspection, and provide for a representative bound to secrecy.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 25, Art. 32(1)(c), Art. 33(1)(b), Art. 58, Art. 60 and Art. 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 13.1, 192, 194, 196, 197, 198, 199, 220.1 and 224.2

Directive (EU) 2016/943

trade secrets

Related decisions

• TIRU, 24 March 2025, order dismissing MAGUIN’s application to set the order aside.

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.