Van Loon Beheer Nederland v Inverquark Deutschland (CFI, 30 October 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 30 October 2025 (UPC_CFI_1325/2025), given without hearing the defendants two days after the application was filed, the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered, in favour of Van Loon Beheer Nederland, the inspection and preservation of evidence concerning the « InverJet » counter-current swimming system displayed by Inverquark at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne, under the European patent with unitary effect EP 3 653 275. The measures were granted without security.

The order shows that a protective letter disputing infringement and validity does not prevent an ex parte saisie where the features in issue are inside the product and the trade fair lasts only a few days.

Facts and procedure

On 20 October 2025, EVA Optic, described as exclusive licensee, sent a warning letter. On 24 October the defendants rejected it, disputing infringement and validity, and filed protective letters asking that no decision be made without a hearing and that security of at least EUR 200,000 be required. Van Loon filed its application on 28 October 2025, during the fair (28 to 31 October). Inverquark Deutschland handles the German market. Inverquark GmbH, the Austrian parent company, runs the website and the stand.

The applicable law

Art. 60 UPCA allows inspection and preservation of evidence on the basis of reasonably available evidence making infringement plausible, where appropriate without hearing the defendant. Rules 192 to 199 set out the conditions: contents of the application, the choice of the ex parte route (Rule 194), measures and confidentiality (Rule 196), review and service (Rule 197) and inspection (Rule 199).

Question

May an ex parte inspection be ordered at a trade fair where the defendants have filed a protective letter disputing infringement and validity, and should the measure be made conditional on security?

Decision

The division has jurisdiction (Art. 32(1)(c) and Art. 33(1)(b) UPCA) and the application is admissible, the applicant having shown its intention to bring main proceedings (paragraph 14). Infringement is possible on the photographs of the external structure, since the internal features (flow channel, dimensions, motor housing) cannot be observed from outside. The protective letter’s denial of a continuously narrowing channel itself shows why inspection is needed (paragraphs 15 to 18). Validity is not examined at this stage, and mere allegations of added matter are not enough (paragraph 19).

Urgency and the risk of evidence being lost justify the ex parte route: the product is no longer available to the applicant and may be removed from the fair, and the protective letter is no bar (paragraphs 20 to 25). The balance of interests favours the applicant, since the measures are not unduly burdensome and the defendants’ secrets are protected. Seizure and handover of documents apply only if inspection is impossible (paragraphs 26 to 29). A bailiff assists the expert, seizure falling within national bailiffs’ competence, only the applicant’s representatives may attend, and the results may be used only in the main proceedings (paragraphs 31 to 34). No security was required: the possible harm is small, the defendants may continue to sell the product and the fair is short (paragraph 38).

Key points for practice

• A protective letter does not bar an ex parte inspection. The technical denial it contains may instead show that the measure is useful.
• Validity is not examined in inspection proceedings. Bare allegations of invalidity carry no weight.
• Security may be dispensed with where the measure does not stop the defendant from selling its product and lasts only as long as a trade fair.
• Practical point: trade fairs offer a short but effective window for a saisie, patentees should prepare the application, the expert and the bailiff in advance.

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, 196, 197, 199 and 220.1

Case law cited

Maguin v Tiru, Court of Appeal, 15 July 2025, Bekaert Binjiang Steel v Siltronic, Düsseldorf Local Division, 18 October 2024 (UPC_CFI_539/2024), OTEC Präzisionsfinish v STEROS, Düsseldorf Local Division, 26 March 2025, myStromer v Revolt, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 June 2023 (UPC_CFI_177/2023)

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.