Case Law
Article 60: Order to preserve evidence and to inspect premises

Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division, Order dated 01/03/2024, C-Kore / Novawell (Case number UPC_CFI_397/2023 App_601-2024)
Example of decision on the burden of proof by the applicant to the saisie order: “According to Art. 60.1 UPCA, the applicant must provide reasonable evidence to support the claim that the patent has been infringed or is about to be infringed, i.e. the application should not be based on simple assumptions or allegations that are not supported by sufficient evidence, the aim being to gather all the means to prove the alleged infringement.”

Court of First Instance - Milan (IT) Local Division, Order dated 25/09/2023, PROGRESS MASCHINEN & AUTOMATION AG / AWM S.R.L., SCHNELL S.P.A. (Case number UPC_CFI_286/2023, ORD_576298/2023)
Example of decision concerning the burden of proof on the claimant: “The Claimant sufficiently proved that he is entitled as proprietor of the patent EP230 (see Enclosure A). Concerning the validity of the patent at issue, it implies from the EPO Board of Appeal decision (see Enclosure B) that:
– opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office related to EP230 have been rejected;
– the Defendants were not parties of the opposition proceedings;
- the patent at issue has been maintained as granted.
Therefore, the validity of the patent at issue - at this early stage - is proved.”

Court of First Instance - Brussels (BE) Local Division, Order dated 21/09/2023, Jozef Frans Nelissen v OrthoApnea S.L. (Case number UPC_CFI_329/2023, ORD_575902/2023)