Veridium IP v T3K-Forensics (CFI, 4 August 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 17 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 4 August 2026, published on the register on 13 October 2026, the Düsseldorf Local Division ordered, without hearing the defendants, the inspection and preservation of evidence concerning the BioCapture SDK and the T3K BioCapture application, at the request of Veridium IP, proprietor of EP 3 254 232 B1. It based the absence of a prior hearing on the risk that the code might be altered, appointed a court expert, imposed a status quo obligation and made the order conditional on the provision of security.

Facts and procedure

Veridium IP Limited, based in London and proprietor of EP 3 254 232 B1, applied to the Düsseldorf Local Division under numbers UPC_CFI_2738/2026 and UPC_CFI_2739/2026 against two companies named T3K-Forensics GmbH, one based in Vienna and the other in Munich. The measures sought concerned the BioCapture SDK and the T3K BioCapture application. The panel comprised presiding judge Thomas, acting as judge-rapporteur, Dr Rinken, sitting in place of Dr Schumacher, and Dr Zhilova, all legally qualified judges. The order was made without the defendants being heard and was published on the register more than two months after it was issued. No earlier decision has been published in this case.

Question

On what conditions may a local division order the inspection of software without first hearing the defendants, and how should its execution be framed?

Decision

The Local Division granted the application in part and rejected it for the remainder, on the basis of Article 60 UPCA and Rules 192, 196, 197 and 199 RoP. It held that the risk of the code being altered justified ordering the measure without a prior hearing of the defendants. It appointed a court expert and imposed a status quo obligation on the software settings for the duration of the inspection. Finally, the order only takes effect once security has been provided.

Key points for practice

• The risk of the code being altered was accepted as grounds for dispensing with a prior hearing, which opens a useful route for gathering evidence of infringement implemented in software.
• A status quo obligation on the software settings preserves the usefulness of the inspection and is worth requesting expressly in the application.
• Since the security is a condition of the order taking effect, the applicant should be ready to provide it at once so as not to delay execution.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 192, 196, 197 and 199 RoP

UPC Agreement

Article 60 UPCA

Related decisions

• No other decision published to date in this case.

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 17 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.