Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 25 November 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 25 November 2025 (UPC_CFI_1696/2025), made without hearing the defendants, the Düsseldorf Local Division allowed Topsoe A/S, before any action on the merits based on EP 3 802 413 B1, to have inspected SYPOX GmbH’s electrically heated steam reforming hydrogen plants (models SYPOX H-200 and H-400) and their technical documentation, at SYPOX’s seat and production site and at biogas producer Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts, which operates a pilot plant. The order is notable for its breadth: copying of technical documents, including those held in the cloud, removal of computers in the alternative, opening of the reactor and export of process data, and two experts acting simultaneously, all without security.

Facts and procedure

The patent, entitled « Hydrogen production by steam methane reforming », claims a plant (claim 1) and a process (claim 22), Topsoe withdrew its opt-out on 21 November 2025, the day it filed the application (paragraphs 1 and 2). SYPOX, a spin-off of the Technical University of Munich, offers biogas to hydrogen plants on its website. A pilot plant was said to be operating at the second defendant’s site until at least the end of November 2025 (paragraphs 7 to 14). The plants are sold only directly, at prices running into millions of euros, and SYPOX declined to disclose technical details in earlier contacts (paragraphs 15 and 16).

The applicable law

Inspection and preservation of evidence fall under Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192, 194, 196, 197 and 199, the division’s competence follows from Articles 32(1)(c) and 33(1)(b) UPCA (paragraph 19). An order without a hearing requires a demonstrable risk that evidence will be destroyed or become unavailable (Rule 197.1), and dispensing with security requires special circumstances (Rule 196.6).

Question

Can Topsoe obtain, without a hearing and without security, an inspection of the SYPOX plants and their technical documentation, and which measures are proportionate?

Decision

Topsoe made infringement of claims 1 and 22 plausible, relying on SYPOX’s website, a « Gasworld » article of August 2025, the description of the EU « ERe Tech » project and application WO 2021/209509 filed by SYPOX’s managing director. An inspection is still needed to reach a conclusion (paragraphs 20 to 24). Validity is not examined absent clear indications such as an adverse decision (paragraph 25).

Urgency is shown: the pilot plant may be dismantled at the end of November 2025, the plants are available neither on the market nor at trade fairs, and buying one for millions of euros would be unreasonable (paragraphs 27 to 30). Proceeding without a hearing is justified by the risk that documents and process data would be deleted (paragraphs 31 and 32). The balance of interests favours Topsoe, the confidentiality measures protecting the defendants (paragraphs 33 to 35).

Copying of documents, which the expert may examine off the premises given their complexity, was ordered. Removal of computers is allowed only in the alternative, as a less intrusive measure than full dismantling. Historical data may be accessed only if live data are unavailable, and the plant shut down only if inspection is otherwise impossible (paragraphs 37 to 40). Two experts are appointed so as to act simultaneously at the first two sites, the process engineering specialist being assigned to the site where a plant is certainly located (paragraphs 41 and 42). Topsoe’s officers and employees are excluded, and only one of its lawyers may attend per defendant (paragraphs 44 and 45). The report may only be used in proceedings on the merits against the defendants (paragraph 47). No security is required: the inspection causes at most minor harm, as the defendants remain free to operate and market the plants, and security would delay a measure possible only until the end of November (paragraph 51). The operative part orders these measures, the delivery of reports within three weeks, secrecy for all participants, a later decision on disclosure of the reports after hearing the defendants and penalty payments set according to the circumstances, puts the costs of the inspection on Topsoe and otherwise dismisses the application. The panel was presided over by Judge Thomas.

Key points for practice

• An inspection may cover technical documentation, including material on servers or in the cloud accessible from the inspected premises, and the expert may take copies away.
• The most intrusive measures (removal of computers, shutting down the plant, historical data) are granted only in the alternative, in a graduated way.
• Where a product is sold only directly and at a very high price, the patentee need not buy one to examine it.
• Practical point: asking for several experts allows simultaneous inspections at different sites, which limits the risk of evidence disappearing.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 32(1)(c), 33(1)(b), 60 and 73(2)(a)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 194.2, 196, 197, 199 and 220.1(c)

Case law cited

Maguin v Tiru, Court of Appeal, 15 July 2025, OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 March 2025, myStromer v Revolt, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 June 2023 (UPC_CFI_177/2023)

Related decisions

• Topsoe v SYPOX, 26 November 2025, correction of the addresses in the operative part.
• Topsoe v SYPOX, 10 December 2025, second inspection order (UPC_CFI_1849/2025).
• Topsoe v SYPOX, 4 May 2026, review of the order (Rule 197.3).

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.