UPC_CFI_1540/2026 – CJ CheilJedang v Eppen

Court
Local Division The Hague
Date
Outcome
Granted
Sector
Chemicals
Decision Type
PROCEDURAL

Expert Commentary

No evidence of infringement! Facts 1. CJ was granted an evidentiary seizure and inspection order. 2. The seized samples were tested in a lab, which found no evidence of infringement contrary to earlier analyzed results of CJ. 3. CJ, which (apparently) had in the meantime started proceedings on the merits, was allowed to run its own tests on the seized samples. 4. The defendant asks for an extension of time for filing its defence until the new results would be known. 5. The expert in the seizure procedure had not looked in detail at the seized documents. The Court 1. The Court grants the extension of time. 2. The Court asks the parties to agree on an independent lab, as well as on an independent expert who should go through the documents to tell which ones are relevant for the infringement question. Comment 1. Apparently, the claimant did not have proof of infringement when it started the case on the merits and is now trying desperately to get some. 2. The granted extension seems reasonable as there is nothing to defend against if the claimant has not yet filed its infringement evidence. 3. However, what if the defendant had asked the JR to apply R. 334(h) immediately after the “non-infringement” result of the lab was known? 4. The claimant executes an inspection order, obtains samples, has them tested in a lab of their choosing (I assume), applying a testing protocol which (I assume) they also suggested. Why would the claimant then be allowed to run its own tests? The case should have been dismissed or the claimant should have withdrawn its claim and, should it get the evidence it needed in the end, have filed a new action. 5. In my opinion, this has nothing to do with front-loaded proceedings and the objective of having a decision in 12-14 months, which does not seem possible here.

Full Decision Text

Local Division The Hague UPC_CFI_0001540/2026 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 28/07/2026 Patent no. EP3508580 Date of receipt of Written Procedure: 4 May 2026 **CLAIMANT/S** 1) CJ CheilJedang Corporation (Applicant) - 330, Dongho-ro - Seoul - 04560 - KR Represented by: * Dr. Georg Andreas Rauh * Dr. Jürgen Meier * Daan de Lange * Franziska Erlmeier * Dr. Simon Hastreiter (Vossius & Brinkhof) **DEFENDANT/S** 1) Eppen Netherlands B.V. Karl Weisbardstraat 181 - 3015GM - Rotterdam - NL 2) Heilongjiang Eppen Biotech Co. Ltd Deligeer Industrial Park, 166200, Duerbet Mongol Auton. County, Daqing City, Heilongjiang Province, CN 3) Ningxia Eppen Biotech Co., Ltd Yanghe Industry Garden, 750100, Yongning County, Yinchuan, Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, CN 4) Inner Mongolia Eppen Biotech Co., Ltd Resources-based City Economic Transformation Zone, 024070, Chifeng City, Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region, CN 5) Oostvogels Logistics B.V. Hazeldonk 6389 - 4836 LE - Breda - NL Represented by (all defendants): * Mr. O.P. Swens (Vondst) * Mr. R. Dijkstra (Vondst) * Mr. S. Moonen (Vondst) * Mr. S.J. van Calker (Vondst) * Dr. R. Raggers (AOMB) **PATENT AT ISSUE** Patent no. EP3508580 Proprietor/s CJ CheilJedang Corporation **DECIDING JUDGE** Presiding judge Edger Brinkman Judge-rapporteur Edger Brinkman LANGUAGE OF PROCEEDINGS: English **SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS** Infringement claim **GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER** Defendants requested an extension of the deadline for the SoD (until November 2026) and a stay of the proceedings. They argue that the test results of the seized samples by CJ are not yet available. CJ opposes the requests and indicated today the test results would follow this week. As a background: last September, CJ filed a preservation of evidence request (862/2025), which was granted. The expert (with help of a laboratory) analysed the samples seized, yet found no evidence of infringement, contrary to earlier analytical reporting by claimant1. Claimant was then allowed to perform its own testing on the seized samples. 1. A sample from outside the UPCA was tested, and no chain of control could be established as the sample was given to the claimant by a third party that does not want to be named, all according to CJ. Having heard the parties, the JR grants an extension for the SoD of 6 weeks after receipt of CJ's test results (this applies to all defendants). If those test results point to infringement, defendants may perhaps wish to perform counter testing. If so, and not concluded before the SoD deadline, they are allowed to upload those test results without delay. The JR submits that parties could also agree on independent laboratory testing. 2. The question of access to the technical documentation seized remains. It appears that the Court appointed expert did not (extensively) look at that evidence, and whether this points towards or away from infringement. In recent orders (as yet unpublished), this court has granted such access in a two step process, at first to an independent technical expert/bailiff to assess relevance and draw up a report, who may annex the relevant documents. Parties could agree on e.g. an independent patent attorney for this. 3. If need be, the JR may schedule a short case management hearing to discuss this. Please provide your availabilities for August for this. **ORDER** The Court: - Extends the deadline for submission of the statement of defence for all defendants to 6 weeks after submission by claimant of the test results. - Requests parties for their availabilities in August, by the end of this week.

Key Holdings

  • Courts may grant extensions of time for defense if the claimant's infringement evidence is still pending.
  • The court can order parties to agree on independent labs and experts for assessing seized evidence.
  • The ability of a claimant to re-test samples after an initial negative finding raises questions about procedural fairness and efficiency.
  • The decision highlights a tension with the UPC's objective of front-loaded and swift proceedings.
  • The possibility of dismissing a claim or requiring withdrawal when initial evidence is insufficient is a key point of discussion.

Tags

  • Evidence
  • Infringement
  • Procedure
  • Extension of Time
  • Seizure
  • Case Management

Related Cases

View original decision