TIRU v VALINEA ENERGIE (CFI, 24 March 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 24 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_814/2024, ORD_13139/2025), the Paris Local Division (Judges Lignières, presiding and rapporteur, Gillet and Lopes) rejected VALINEA ENERGIE’s requests to set aside and to review 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. The Division defined the applicant’s duty of candour, assessed the risk of loss of evidence as at the date of the application and refused to increase the security. A parallel order of the same day deals with the request of the furnace manufacturer, MAGUIN.

Facts and procedure

The patent, entitled « Waste incineration plant and associated method », is in force in France, the United Kingdom and Poland (paragraphs 3 and 4). On 17 December 2024 TIRU filed two applications to preserve evidence, against VALINEA ENERGIE, operator of the allegedly infringing furnace, and against MAGUIN, its manufacturer. 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 expert reports were filed on 20 and 21 January 2025, and the confidentiality club was extended on 6 March 2025 to two people per company (paragraphs 6 to 11). On 12 February 2025 VALINEA sought to have the order set aside and, in the alternative, reviewed so as to raise the security from EUR 10,000 to EUR 50,000 (paragraphs 12 and 42). The hearing took place on 10 March 2025.

The applicable law

The request was made 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). Security is governed by Article 60 UPCA and Rule 196.6.

Question

Did the proprietor breach its duty of candour by not disclosing prior art and earlier dealings, was proceeding without a hearing justified, and should the security be increased?

Decision

On candour, the Division stated that the judge ordering the seizure is not the judge of validity: the proprietor need not answer in advance possible attacks on validity (paragraph 22). VALINEA relied on prior art, dealings from 2019 to 2021 and the historic « Laurent Bouillet » furnace of 1987, but no EPO opposition was pending, and the application mentioned VALINEA’s approach to TIRU in 2021 and its acquisition by the Paprec group, which sufficed to inform the judge (paragraphs 23 to 25).

On the absence of a hearing, the conduct of the respondent during execution and the absence of digital documents found are irrelevant, as the request to set aside is assessed as at the date the judge was seised (paragraph 33). The announced commissioning in the first quarter of 2025 meant a risk that the furnace would be fired up in early January 2025, which would have made the descriptive seizure very difficult. The risk therefore did not rest solely on the digital format of the documentation (paragraphs 34 to 37). The two months between the record of the video on 11 October 2024 and the application did not show a lack of diligence, and the video, online since August 2024 with 77 views, was not shown to have been known to TIRU earlier (paragraphs 35, 39 and 40).

On security, VALINEA showed no financial weakness on TIRU’s part. The measure concerned only the preservation of evidence, under confidentiality, and nothing prevents VALINEA from seeking more appropriate security in the action on the merits (paragraph 44). Both requests were rejected (paragraph 46).

Key points for practice

• The duty of candour under Rule 192.3 does not require the proprietor to answer possible invalidity arguments in advance.
• The risk of loss of evidence is assessed as at the date of the application, regardless of how execution unfolded.
• A request to increase security requires a showing of the applicant’s financial weakness or of harm not covered by the initial security.
• Practical point: an ex parte application should set out the background of dealings between the parties, without having to address every alleged item of prior art.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

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

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192.3, 196.6, 197.1, 197.4, 220.1(c), 224.2(b) and 262A

Case law cited

No UPC decision is cited.

Related decisions

• TIRU v VALINEA ENERGIE, 23 December 2024, ex parte order for preservation of evidence and inspection under review.

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.