{"id":11019,"date":"2026-08-28T06:23:36","date_gmt":"2026-08-28T06:23:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/contentieux-des-brevets\/preuve-devant-la-jub\/"},"modified":"2026-08-31T06:34:36","modified_gmt":"2026-08-31T06:34:36","slug":"preuve-devant-la-jub","status":"publish","type":"page","link":"https:\/\/www.dhenne-avocats.fr\/en\/contentieux-des-brevets\/preuve-devant-la-jub\/","title":{"rendered":"Evidence preservation before the UPC"},"content":{"rendered":"

The Unified Patent Court has its own instrument for preserving evidence, provided for by Article 60 of the Agreement of 19 February 2013 and implemented by Rule 194 of the Rules of Procedure. It serves the same function as the French saisie-contrefa\u00e7on<\/a>, but it has neither its mechanics nor its effects.<\/p>\n

The framework<\/h2>\n

Article 60 allows the Court to order prompt and effective measures to preserve evidence relating to an alleged infringement, subject to the protection of confidential information. Those measures may take the form of a detailed description, with or without the taking of samples, or the physical seizure of the allegedly infringing goods and, where appropriate, of the materials and implements used. The Court may also order the inspection of premises.<\/p>\n

The application is governed by Rule 194, which fixes its content: the patent relied on, the facts alleged, the evidence already available, the measures sought and the reasons why they are necessary. As in French practice, the rigour of that drafting governs everything that follows.<\/p>\n

Three differences from the French seizure<\/h2>\n

The ex parte character is the exception<\/h3>\n

This is the most important divergence. The French saisie-contrefa\u00e7on is always granted on an ex parte application. Before the Unified Patent Court, hearing the defendant first is the principle; an ex parte measure is reserved for cases where delay is likely to cause irreparable harm to the proprietor or where there is a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed. An applicant counting on surprise must therefore justify it, and is never assured of obtaining it.<\/p>\n

Who attends the operations<\/h3>\n

The composition of the team executing the measure does not follow the French rules, under which the applicant\u2019s usual patent attorney may assist the commissaire de justice. That apparently technical point determines, in practice, the quality of what is described and taken away: reading the patent during the operations is not a luxury, it is what separates a useful description from an inventory.<\/p>\n

Proportionality applies twice<\/h3>\n

Article 60 already makes the measure conditional on reasonably available evidence, and Article 62 requires the Court to weigh the interests of the parties. The proportionality test therefore operates at two levels, where French law concentrates it on the scope of the measures authorised. The result is a more tightly framed procedure, more costly and, to date, less predictable.<\/p>\n

When to prefer it<\/h2>\n

A measure before the Unified Patent Court is the right choice where the action on the merits will be brought there: the evidence is gathered within the procedural framework that will judge it, and its admissibility is not open to argument. It is equally appropriate where the infringement is spread across several participating States and a single measure is preferable to several national proceedings.<\/p>\n

Dans les autres cas (preuve destin\u00e9e \u00e0 des proc\u00e9dures hors d\u2019Europe, France territoire principal de la contrefa\u00e7on, n\u00e9cessit\u00e9 de l\u2019effet de surprise) la saisie fran\u00e7aise reste l\u2019instrument le plus s\u00fbr. Le raisonnement complet figure dans notre analyse consacr\u00e9e au choice between a French seizure and a UPC measure<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Key takeaways<\/h2>\n