UPC_CFI_1103/2026

Decisions and documents (2)

• 2026-06-22procedural

  Claimant:

  ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG

  Defendant:

  WEPA NEDERLAND B.V

  1. Review of an order to preserve evidence denied (R. 197.3) is unsuccessful. 2. No obligation for employees to answer questions could have been derived from the order. 3. It is clear from the rules of procedure, R. 198.1 RoP, that the order is revoked or ceases to have effect, upon request of the defendant, if within the time limit set, no proceedings on the merits have started. Order under 7.15 was clearly intended to set this time limit. Neither the action that the Defendant is required to take nor the conse- quences need to be specified in the Order. Furthermore, lawyers were present at the seizure from 12:00 onwards, capable of explaining to their client what action to take. 4. According to established case law, urgency is not a pre-requisite for an order to preserve evidence. It can however be a factor in determining whether the order should be given ex parte. Court assumes urgency as many documents to be seized are/were likely stored digitally, which can easily and promptly be deleted or moved elsewhere. In addition, the applicant for review is part of a group of companies, facilitating easy movement of products, intermediates or pulp-fibres as well as any physical documents as envisaged in the order. Furthermore, this review is being conducted inter partes. No convincing arguments have been put forward to justify rejection of the application to preserve evidence, had it been conducted inter partes. KEYWORDS: review of order for preservation of evidence; obligation to answer questions; ex parte; urgency

  Judge: Edger Brinkman Decided • Panel: Edger Brinkman Decided🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-04-17procedural

  Claimant:

  ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG

  Defendant:

  WEPA NEDERLAND B.V

  1. Application for preservation of evidence (description, documents and samples) allowed for patent on certain tissue paper. 2. Specific Dutch national rules and practice for seizure applied, inter alia on how documents are to be seized and on how to deal with documents on password- protected drives or “in the cloud”. Representatives of the Applicant may not be present during the seizure. Defendant’s personnel may be asked questions but not obliged to answer under pain of penalty. KEYWORDS: preservation of evidence; national law; password-protected drives; in the cloud; obligation to answer questions

  Judge: Edger Brinkman Decided • Panel: Edger Brinkman Decided🔒 Unlock Official PDF