Bekaert v Siltronic & Anor (UPC_CFI_539/2024)

• Bekaert is the proprietor of a European Patent relating to saws typically used in semiconductor manufacturing. Siltronic produced and sold wafers for the semiconductor industry and Hinterberger is a logistics company that provides Siltronic storage facilities.
• In the run up to the main action, Bekaert filed an ex parte application to inspect Siltronic and Hinterberger's facilities and for an order to preserve evidence (saisie). The Düsseldorf LD granted the order. Siltronic submitted an application for a review of the saisie order.
• It argued that the procedure under Article 60 UPCA and Rule 192 RoP et seq. serves to secure evidence, but not to obtain information or certainties. Siltronic maintained that Bekaert's enquiry had not been a serious attempt to obtain the saws in dispute and that the order should be revoked because Bekaert should have sought the evidence through more conventional approaches, such as a test purchase, or simple investigation or importation.
• The Düsseldorf LD found that Siltronic's application for review was admissible but it was unsuccessful on the merits.
• The court upheld the original order, stating that the review procedure is solely for examining the order for any (obvious) errors made by the court when issuing the order and no such errors had been shown. Further, Bekaert had a legitimate interest in preserving evidence and the measures ordered were appropriate.

This analysis is based on a machine translation of a decision not available in English.