UPC_CFI_1696/2025

Decisions and documents (3)

• 2026-10-14procedural

  Antragstellerin:

  Topsoe A/S

  Antragsgegnerinnen:

  Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH; SYPOX GmbH

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-08-26procedural

  Antragstellerin:

  Topsoe A/S

  Antragsgegnerinnen:

  Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH; SYPOX GmbH

  1. As the Düsseldorf Local Division has already stated (UPC_CFI_539/2024, Order of 19 November 2025, Headnotes 1–3, para. 28 et seq. – Bekaert v. Siltronic), the following assessment must be carried out to determine the scope of the disclosure of the detailed description to the applicant: a) The first step is to establish whether the information or evidence constitutes or contains trade secrets, personal data relating to third parties, or other confidential information. b) If this is the case, as a second step, this information must be redacted if it is irrelevant to the question of patent infringement or acts of use. c) Where confidential information relates to the question of infringement and/or acts of use, a decision must be made on a case-by-case basis, as to whether it should be disclosed to the applicant, who would then be obliged to maintain confidentiality vis- à-vis third parties, or whether the applicant’s access to such information should be restricted to a specific group of persons (third step). 2. With regard to the relevance of confidential information to the question of patent infringement (second step), the following applies: a) Information which the expert has actually relied on in his detailed description when examining patent infringement is generally considered relevant. It is for the respondent, who invokes the need for redaction, to demonstrate that this is not the case for certain information in exceptional circumstances. In doing so, the respondent may not rely on the argument that the patent infringement could have been adequately assessed on the basis of other information. b) Where, on the other hand, the matter concerns information which the expert did not rely on when examining the question of infringement, it is for the applicant to demonstrate its relevance. If the expert has quoted extensively from documents when drawing up the detailed description, and the applicant nevertheless seeks disclosure of these documents as well, the applicant must also explain why the remaining content of these documents is significant in addition to the detailed description. c) The relevance of certain information to patent infringement may also arise from the fact that, whilst such information is not directly necessary for determining whether the subject-matter falls within the scope of the patent claim, it is necessary for understanding the explanations as a whole.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF
• 2026-05-04procedural

  Antragstellerin:

  Topsoe A/S

  Antragsgegnerinnen:

  Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH; SYPOX GmbH

  1. There is cause for concern regarding an expert's impartiality if, from the perspective of a knowledgeable and reasonable observer, certain circumstances give rise to justified doubts as to the expert's impartiality or independence. Such doubts are justified if the aforemen- tioned observer concludes that there is a likelihood of the expert being influenced by factors other than their duties. 2. If concerns about impartiality are based on the expert report itself, it should be noted that the content of this report alone is not sufficient to cast doubts on the expert’s impartiality. A flawed report or lack of expertise does not necessarily indicate bias. Rather, there must be circumstances indicating a lack of objectivity.

  🔒 Unlock Official PDF