Rule 194 – Examination of the Application for preserving evidence
Content
1. The Court shall have the discretion - including where the Application is made pursuant to Rule 192.3
- to:
(a) inform the defendant about the Application and invite him to lodge, within a time period to be
specified, an Objection to the Application for preserving evidence which shall contain:
(i) the reasons why the Application shall fail;
(ii) the facts and evidence relied on, in particular any challenge to the facts and evidence relied on
by the applicant;
(iii) where main proceedings on the merits of the case have not yet been started before the Court, the
reasons why the action which will be started before the Court shall fail and an indication of the facts
and evidence relied on in support;
(b) summon the parties to an oral hearing;
(c) summon the applicant to an oral hearing without the presence of the defendant;
(d) decide the Application without having heard the defendant.
2. In exercising its discretion, the Court shall take into account:
(a) the urgency of the action;
(b) whether the reasons for not hearing the defendant [Rules 192.3 and 197] appear well-founded;
(c) the probability that evidence may be destroyed or otherwise cease to be available [Rule 197].
3. The presiding judge may decide that he or the judge-rapporteur or other single judge or the standing
judge may decide on the Application.
4. In cases of extreme urgency the standing judge appointed in accordance with Rule 345.5 may decide
immediately on an Application to preserve evidence and the procedure to be followed on the
Application.
5. If the Court decides to inform the defendant about the Application the Court will first give the
applicant the possibility to withdraw the Application. In the event of such withdrawal the applicant may
request that the Court shall order that the Application and its contents shall remain confidential.
6. If the patent the subject of the Application is also the subject of a Protective letter pursuant to Rule 207
the applicant may withdraw the Application pursuant to paragraph 5.
Related Cases
- UPC_CoA_002/2025 – Valinea v Tiru
- UPC CFI 834/2025 – Ecovacs Robotics Co., Ltd. v Roborock (HK) Limited
- UPC CFI No. 342/2025 – A.G.A. S.R.L. and A.C.E.F. S.R.L. v 3V SIGMA S.P.A.
- UPC CFI 1600/2025 – LiNA Medical AG v Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd.
- UPC CFI 1589/2025 – Komax Holding AG v. Jiangsu BOZHIWANG Automation Equipment Co., Ltd.
- UPC CFI 407/2025, UPC CFI 408/2025 – Organon Heist B.V. and NV Organon v. Genentech Inc. and F. Hoffmann – La Roche AG
- UPC CFI 1325/2025 – Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V. v Inverquark Deutschland GmbH and Inverquark GmbH
- UPC CFI 885/2025 – OTEC Präzisionsfinish GmbH v STEROS GPA INNOVATIVE S.L.