Maguinv Tiru (UPC_CFI_813/2024) & Valinea Energie v Tiru (UPC_CFI_814/2024)

• Tiru is the proprietor of a patent relating to technology implemented in waste incineration furnaces. Tiru filed parallel requests for evidence preservation and inspections of the premises against both Maguin and Valinea in the Paris LD before any proceedings on the merits.
• In support of its application, Tiru explained that through a YouTube video it had been informed that an incineration furnace had been installed in October 2024, which was manufactured by Maguin and operated on a Valinea site that appeared to infringe its patent. Tiru argued that evidence seizure and inspections were necessary to confirm whether the features protected by Tiru's patent were reproduced. Tiru made its request on an ex parte basis. The orders were granted and carried out.
• Maguin and Valinea requested reviews of the orders. They argued that the orders should be lifted because Tiru's ex parte request was unjustified due to an absence of urgency, Tiru breached its duty of loyalty by deliberately concealing information that was likely to influence the issuance of the measures ex parte, Tiru made the application too late, and there was no risk of destruction of evidence.
• The Paris LD rejected both Maguin's and Valinea's requests. The court held that Maguin and Valinea failed to demonstrate that Tiru had breached its duty of loyalty provided for in Rule 192.3 RoP. It also noted that the ex parte application was justified because of the principle of ensuring the effectiveness of the measures for the preservation of evidence. The Paris LD said that it was necessary for the parallel operations at Maguin and Valinea to take place at the same time and the imminent commissioning of the furnace meant that both inspections needed to take place quickly. The judge granting the order had correctly applied the principle of effectiveness, along with the principles of justice, equity and proportionality.
• Tiru's application was made two months after it became aware of the YouTube video and the Paris LD held that this was a reasonable time period in which to compile the evidence preservation applications.
• The decision relating to the joined action is available in full here.

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