TIRU v VALINEA ENERGIE (CFI, 23 December 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 23 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_814/2024, ORD_67654/2024), the Paris Local Division, sitting as a single judge (Judge Lignières), authorised TIRU, without hearing the defendant, to have a detailed description, seizures and an inspection carried out at VALINEA ENERGIE’s site in Montbéliard, where the incineration furnace alleged to infringe EP 3 178 578 is installed. A parallel order of the same day targets the supplier of the furnace, MAGUIN. The measures were confined to evidence of the existence of infringement. The order shows that Art. 60 UPCA measures may target the operator of an installation, not only its manufacturer, the limited impact on the operator weighing in the proportionality review.

Facts and procedure

In October 2024 TIRU learned that MAGUIN, its competitor, had supplied VALINEA ENERGIE, a Veolia subsidiary, with a furnace apparently reproducing independent claims 1 and 15 and dependent claims 4, 5, 6 and 14 of the patent, due to start operating in the first quarter of 2025. A bailiff’s report of 11 October 2024 recorded a video posted by the local authority and posts by Veolia staff. The application was filed on 17 December 2024, before any action on the merits based on direct use (Art. 25 UPCA).

The applicable law

Jurisdiction rested on Articles 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b) and 60(1) UPCA. Art. 60(5) and (6) UPCA and Rules 192 to 199 govern ex parte measures: reasonably available evidence of infringement, urgency, risk of destruction of evidence and proportionality. Trade secrets are protected under Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 196.1(d), by reference to Directive 2016/943.

Question

Can a patentee obtain, without a hearing, a description and seizure at the site of the operator of an installation not yet in service, and within what limits?

Decision

The court found it had jurisdiction, VALINEA ENERGIE having its seat in Montbéliard and the alleged infringement occurring in France (section 1). Ownership and validity were sufficiently shown, no opposition being pending (section 3.1). Analysis of the video made it probable that features 1.1, 1.2, 1.4 and 1.6 were reproduced, while features 1.3, 1.5, 1.7 and 1.8 required an inspection (section 3.2). TIRU had acted within a reasonable two months. Urgency was found, but not extreme urgency, so the single judge decided (section 4.1). The imminent start-up and the ease of hiding digital data justified proceeding without a hearing (section 4.2).

The threat that evidence would be lost for good outweighed the impact on the defendant, as the furnace was not yet operating (section 6.1). The expert, Mr Sartorius, assisted by a bailiff, may have the furnace access hatches opened. TIRU’s representative is bound to secrecy, even towards his client (section 6.2). The report may be used only in the merits proceedings (section 6.4). The measures must be carried out by 17 January 2025 and are subject, under the operative part, to security of EUR 10,000, whereas the reasons mention EUR 20,000 (section 6.6). Costs were reserved.

Key points for practice

• Measures to preserve evidence may be directed at the user of an installation, not only at its manufacturer.
• The fact that the installation is not yet in operation reduces the impact on the defendant and eases the proportionality review.
• The measures are limited to the existence of infringement, its origin, extent and the damage being left to the merits proceedings.
• Practical point: check that the reasons and the operative part are consistent, in particular on the amount of security, before enforcement.

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 v VALINEA ENERGIE, 24 March 2025, order dismissing the applications to set aside and review the order.

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.