![We perform significantly better than the EPO average at oppositions](https://www.mewburn.com/hubfs/chess%20pieces%20collide.png)
There is no discovery at the UPC.
In common law jurisdictions, such as England and the US, there is an obligation on the parties to disclose documents in their control which are helpful for their case, but also documents which may be adverse to their case or which support the other party’s case. The purpose of discovery is: (a) to ensure equity as between the parties by giving them access to all the relevant documents that have a bearing on the case, (b) to provide information to the court, (c) to facilitate settlement of the dispute without trial, and (d) to narrow the issues in dispute.
But discovery is not a part of the litigation tradition in many other European Patent Convention countries. Discovery also does not form part of the Unified Patent Court (UPC) rules. Instead, it is for the claimant to secure the necessary evidence to support their case. This evidence may be secured from public sources (for example webpages advertising the sale of an infringing product), trap purchases or private investigations. However, without discovery a claimant may be significantly disadvantaged in proving their case. For example, consider the difficulty in securing evidence of the use of a patented process in a private industrial setting.
To address this difficulty, some EU countries have judicial tools that allow a claimant to secure evidence from the defendant. The most notable example is the saisie contrefaçon procedure available in France to allow the claimant’s representatives and a bailiff to enter the defendant’s premises, and to search for and secure information identified in the order relevant to the patent case.
The UPC Agreement (UPCA) incorporates this legal principal of the French saisie in the form of an “order to preserve evidence” (Article 60(1) UPCA) and an “order for inspection” (Article 60(3) UPCA).
If you want to apply for a UPC saisie you will need to file an application in the desired UPC local division court. The application cannot be a mere fishing exercise or suspicion of infringement, and so the application will need:
If the court grants the order, it will appoint an expert to conduct the saisie. The expert will submit a report of their findings to the court. The court will disclose the report to the applicant, subject to request by the defendant for sequestration of the confidential information.
The applicant will be given 31 calendar days or 20 working days (whichever is longer) to file their infringement action from a deadline set by the court. If they do not do so, the order will be revoked and the evidence gathered will not be usable in proceedings.
UPC Court of Appeal explains the saisie mechanics
In Progress Maschinen v AWM and SCHNELL, Progress had filed an application in the UPC Local Division Milan for preserving evidence and for inspection against both the defendants, AWM and SCHNELL. This was among the first saisie applications and even the Local Division seemed unsure about how the evidence should be handled and the time limits that applied to the parties. The first instance decision in relation to the saisie application was appealed by Progress.
The UPC Court of Appeal (CoA) confirmed that the purpose of a saisie is not merely preservation of evidence but disclosure of that evidence to the applicant. However, that disclosure is not unconditional. It can be subject to the protection of confidential information. The court must hear from the defendant on the request for disclosure even if the defendant does not object to the saisie order itself.
Accordingly, the UPC CoA held that:
The theory is fine. What does it mean in practice?
There is no discovery at the UPC. If you are a claimant you may need to secure evidence held by the defendant to prove your case. A UPC saisie is a powerful tool for this, either before or during an infringement action. There are some circumstances where it may also be of use in revocation actions. But it is an underused judicial tool and may be unfamiliar to those grounded in common law. Only about half a dozen applications for saises have been filed in the first year of the UPC.
If you want to apply for a saisie order at the UPC, our top tips are:
Sean is a European IP lawyer. He is head of our legal services team and a member of our Management Board. He has over 20 years of experience advising on contentious and non-contentious IP matters, including patents, trade marks, designs, copyright, database rights and trade secrets. He has a particular focus on the life science, bioinformatics, pharma and advanced materials sectors. Sean works closely with senior management and their external advisors to deliver a wide range of IP related projects in a pragmatic and commercially-focussed manner, including on IP protection, commercialisation, technology transfer and litigation.
Email: sean.jauss@mewburn.com
Our IP specialists work at all stage of the IP life cycle and provide strategic advice about patent, trade mark and registered designs, as well as any IP-related disputes and legal and commercial requirements.
Our peopleWe have an easily-accessible office in central London, as well as a number of regional offices throughout the UK and an office in Munich, Germany. We’d love to hear from you, so please get in touch.
Get in touch