Van Loon Beheer Nederland v Inverquark Deutschland (CFI, 23 January 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 23 January 2026 (UPC_CFI_1325/2025), the Düsseldorf Local Division released to Van Loon Beheer Nederland the unredacted detailed description drawn up by the expert during the inspection of Inverquark’s stand at the Aquanale trade fair in Cologne (EP 3 653 275), and refused the supplementary expert opinion sought by the respondents. The order makes clear that evidence preservation proceedings are not the place to resolve disputes over the accuracy of the expert’s description.

Question

Can respondents to an inspection order obtain a supplementary expert opinion on the accuracy of the detailed description before it is released to the applicant?

Decision

There is no basis for a supplementary opinion (paragraph 14): Art. 57(4) UPCA and Rule 187 concern court-appointed experts, whereas the description is the result of the preservation measure (paragraph 15). The procedure serves to obtain evidence for main proceedings, including deciding whether to bring them, not to settle disputed issues (paragraph 17), and the release decision must be taken promptly (paragraph 18). The respondents are protected by the request for review under Rule 197.3, which they chose not to use, and by the restriction of the evidence to the main proceedings (paragraph 19). As no confidentiality interests were asserted, the unredacted description was released to the applicant and the confidentiality order lifted in its regard (paragraph 20). The applicant must start proceedings on the merits within 31 calendar days or 20 working days.

Key points for practice

• Challenges to the accuracy of the expert’s description belong in the main proceedings, not in a supplementary opinion within the preservation procedure.
• A respondent that asserts no confidentiality interest within the time allowed should expect the full description to be released to the applicant.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 57(4) and 60

Rules of Procedure

Rules 187, 194(d), 196, 197.3, 198.1 and 199

Case law cited

Centripetal v Palo Alto Networks, Court of Appeal, 28 May 2025, Progress Maschinen & Automation v AWM, Court of Appeal, 23 July 2024, Genentech v Organon Heist, Brussels Local Division, 12 November 2025, OTEC v Steros, Düsseldorf Local Division, 12 May 2025, OTEC Präzisionsfinish v Steros GPA Innovative, Düsseldorf Local Division, 17 November 2025

Related decisions

• Van Loon Beheer Nederland v Inverquark Deutschland, 30 October 2025, order for inspection and preservation of evidence made without hearing the respondents.

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.