UPC_CFI_2738/2026; UPC_CFI_2739/2026 – Veridium v T3K

Expert Commentary

Evidentiary seizure/inspection Facts 1. On 14 September 2026, at the request of Veridium, a seizure and inspection took place at the T3K premises. 2. The Court had ordered that the report of the seizure should first be given to representatives of T3K, which then could indicate which information in the report should be qualified as confidential. Thereafter, the representatives of Veridium could respond and the Court would decide what could be released to Veridium. 3. The extensive report had been filed but there was no representative for T3K. 4. Although T3K knew about the content of the order, it had chosen not to appoint a representative. It is too complicated to ask T3K outside of the CMS system about its opinion with respect to confidentiality. The JR The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) decides that the report should be made available to the claimant. The report can only be used in the proceedings that have to be started within the TRIP’s period, starting after this order has been uploaded in the CMS system. Comment 1. I tend to agree with the decision. A normal company, without an in-house lawyer or patent attorney, would (and should) ask a representative in such a situation, rather than put their head in the sand. 2. However, I would prefer, in light of the Enforcement Directive and the EU Trade Secrets Directive, that in such a situation, the JR would have given T3k the possibility to appoint a representative within one week, and, if not, to order as the JR did in this decision. 3. In any case, lawyers or representatives should ensure that their clients know what to do if confronted with an unexpected visit of a bailiff for an ex parte seizure or inspection, even if only a receptionist is present in the office on a day such as 24 or 31 December. In my experience, this is for some clients (and their lawyers) the most fruitful day to carry out such a seizure, depending on what they hope to find. Make sure the client is prepared, and that it can reach your assistance if necessary (and, as I have also experienced, make sure that not your whole office is on the annual ski trip .

Key Holdings

• Where a defendant fails to appoint a representative to identify confidential information in a seizure report despite knowing of the order, the report may be released to the claimant.
• The Court is not obliged to inquire about confidentiality outside of the CMS system when the defendant chooses not to appoint a representative.
• The seized report made available to the claimant can only be used in the main proceedings required to be initiated within the applicable TRIPS period.

Tags

• Evidentiary seizure/inspection
• Seizure report
• Confidentiality
• Representative
• CMS