1
København — Lokal Afdeling
UPC _CFl_492/2024
ACT_47484/2024
ORD_10371/2025
Kendelse
Afsagt af den fælles patentdomstols lokale afdeling i
København den 3. marts 2025 vedrørende EP 4 238 202 B1
Kendelsen omhandler europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202 B1 og vedrører bl.a., om bevissikrede CAD-
filer kan udleveres til rekvirenten, og om Domstolen skal indkræve fastsatte tvangsbøder.
Rekvirent:
Hybridgenerator ApS
Nørrevang 15 Nørre Lyndelse 5792 Årslev, Danmark
(advokat Mikkel Kleis og patentagent Lasse Rosenlund Lauridsen)
mod
Rekvisiti:
HGSystem ApS
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
HGSystem Holding ApS
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
Infotech Concept ApS
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
Infotech Holding ApS
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
2
(advokat Allan Christensen og europæisk patentagent Jacob Meyland)
(samlet “rekvisiti”)
Det omstridte patent
Europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202 B1
Dommer
Kendelsen er afsagt af en enkelt juridisk dommer, retsformand Peter Agergaard, i henhold til
procesreglementets regel 194, stk. 3.
Processprog
Dansk
Sagens oplysninger
Domstolens lokale afdeling i København afsagde kendelse om bevissikring den 26. august 2024 i
overensstemmelse med rekvirentens anmodning af 16. august 2024 vedrørende europæisk patent
nr. 4 238 202 B1 om omgående sikring af bevismateriale og besigtigelse af ejendom uden
forudgående varsel af rekvisiti.
Rekvirenten blev således meddelt tilladelse til omgående at sikre bevismateriale, der viser
eksistensen og omfanget af krænkelser af rettighederne til europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202 B1
ved at få adgang til adressen gennem Fogedretten i
Svendborg, Danmark, for at:
- Foretage besigtigelse af hybridgeneratorerne model MPU 1000, MPU 2000 og
MPU 3000 og udarbejde en udførlig beskrivelse af disse produkter.
- Opgøre et eventuelt lager af hybridgeneratorerne model MPU 1000, MPU 2000
og MPU 3000.
- Kopiere it-systemer, elektroniske lagringsmidler og fysisk materiale, som
indeholder økonomiske oplysninger og fakturamateriale,
- Kopiere mailkorrespondance samt øvrige dokumenter, herunder vedrørende
produktudvikling, fremstilling, import, eventuel eksport, salg og markedsføring.
Domstolen udpegede til som uvildig IT-ekspert at bistå fogedretten ved
undersøgelsens gennemførelse samt udarbejde en rapport for undersøgelsen og sende denne
rapport til Domstolens lokale afdeling i København senest 14 dage efter bevissikringens
gennemførsel.
3
Det blev fastsat i kendelsen, at rekvisiti skulle tillade fogedretten, den udpegede IT-ekspert og
repræsentanterne for rekvirenten at få adgang på adressen
i overensstemmelse med indholdet af denne kendelse og herunder bl.a. udlevere de
relevante passwords til it-systemerne, således at bevissikringen kunne gennemføres.
I kendelsen blev det videre anført, at hvis rekvisiti ikke overholdt de fastsatte vilkår i kendelsen,
kunne rekvisiti blive pålagt tvangsbøder, der skal betales til Domstolen.
Det blev i kendelsen anført, at Domstolens kendelse kunne fuldbyrdes, når rekvirenten havde
stillet en nærmere bestemt sikkerhed, hvilken rekvirenten umiddelbart efter afsigelsen af
kendelsen indbetalte til UPC.
Domstolens kendelse blev fuldbyrdet af Fogedretten i Svendborg, Danmark, den 30. august
2024.
Det fremgik af den modtagne udskrift fra retsbogen af 30. august 2024 fra Fogedretten i Svendborg,
Danmark, at bevissikringen ikke blev fuldført, idet der manglede adgang til den cloudbaserede
løsning og data heri. Det fremgik bl.a. af retsbogen, at rekvisiti i strid med Domstolens kendelse ikke
ville oplyse brugernavn og kodeord til økonomisystemet e-conomics og rekvisiti e-mail.
Herudover ville rekvisiti ikke oplyse de relevante koder til den bærbare krypterede Apple computer,
der blev beslaglagt under bevissikringen. Den uvildige it-ekspert kunne således ikke få adgang til
indholdet på denne computer.
Rekvisiti havde derfor ikke overholdt betingelserne i Domstolens kendelse af 26. august 2024 om at
udlevere relevante passwords til it-systemerne, således at bevissikringen kunne gennemføres.
På den baggrund bestemte Domstolen ved kendelse af 4. september 2024, at rekvisiti i forening
skulle betale tvangsbøder på 5.000 Euro pr. dag til Domstolen, indtil rekvisiti til Domstolen oplyste
brugernavn og kodeord til økonomisystemet e-conomics og Microsoft 365, oplyste brugernavn og
kodeord til rekvisiti e-mail samt oplyste de relevante koder til den bærbare krypterede computer,
der blev beslaglagt under bevissikringen, således at den uvildige it-ekspert kunne få adgang hertil.
Tvangsbøderne skulle betales fra den dato, at kendelsen blev forkyndt for rekvisiti.
Når rekvisiti havde givet de krævede oplysninger, skulle rekvirenten meddele de søgetermer, som
IT-eksperten skulle fremfinde oplysninger på baggrund af.
Rekvisiti anmodede den 30. september 2024 i henhold til procesreglementets regel 197, stk. 3.om
revurdering af Domstolens lokale afdeling i Københavns kendelse om bevissikring den 26. august
2024.
4
Ved kendelse af 19. december 2024 bestemte Domstolens lokale afdeling i København, at kendelsen
af 26. august 2024 om at tage rekvirentens anmodning vedrørende europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202
B1 om omgående sikring af bevismateriale og besigtigelse af ejendom uden forudgående varsel af
rekvisiti til følge i henhold til UPC-aftalens artikel 60 og procesreglementets regel 196 skulle
stadfæstes. Den foreløbigt udarbejdede rapport fra den udpegede uvildige IT-ekspert
blev udleveret til repræsentanterne for sagens parter. Repræsentanterne blev forpligtede til at
hemmeligholde eventuelle forretningshemmeligheder og andre fortrolige oplysninger, der skulle
komme dem til kendskab herigennem.
Domstolen meddelte parterne den 15. januar 2025, at IT-eksperten havde fået adgang
til Apple-computeren, herunder de relevante koder, så han kunne udfærdige bevissikringsrapport
herom.
IT-eksperten oplyste efterfølgende, at han havde eksporteret dokumenter, mails fra
mailkonto, der var cachet lokalt på computeren, og billeder, der ikke var private fra computeren.
IT-eksperten meddelte den 27. februar 2025, at den supplerende bevissikringsrapport
i henhold til de aftalte søgetermer var blevet færdiggjort foreløbigt, og at den ville blive sendt til
retten umiddelbart herefter.
IT-eksperten oplyste i forlængelse heraf, at han nu er færdig med den beslaglagte Apple computer,
således at den vil kunne tilbageleveres.
Påstande
Rekvirenten har anmodet om at få udleveret alle de bevissikrede CAD-filer, da disse er af
afgørende betydning for at fastslå eksistensen af den formodede krænkelse af stridspatentet.
Rekvirentens repræsentanter skal i det omfang, at sådanne tegninger findes, have udleveret alle
tegninger, som viser den tekniske indretning af stridsprodukterne, og som har betydning for at
kunne fastslå en krænkelse af stridspatentet.
Rekvirenten har videre opfordret Domstolen til at påbegynde opkrævning af de fastsatte
tvangsbøder og anmodet om, at opkrævningen fortsættes, indtil rekvisiti har opfyldt domstolens
kendelse.
Rekvisiti har protesteret imod, at der sker ændring af omfanget af bevissikringsundersøgelsen,
subsdiært at udleveringen alene skal omfatte de dele af Stridsprodukterne, som er relevant for
sagen – og ikke fuldstændige filer, som viser hele opbygningen af produkterne, samt at der
pålægges fortrolighed i forbindelse med udleveringen, så CAD-tegninger ikke kan udleveres
direkte til eller vises til rekvirenten, men alene til rekvirentens repræsentanter.
Rekvisiti har endvidere protesteret imod, at der opkræves de fastsatte tvangsbøder.
5
Parternes indlæg
Ved e-mail af 3. januar 2025 meddelte rekvirenten Domstolen bl.a. følgende:
”… Den vedhæftede foreløbige bevissikringsrapport giver rekvirenten anledning til at fremkomme med
følgende bemærkninger:
CAD-tegninger
Som det fremgår af rapporten blev der under bevissikringsforretningen kopieret bl.a. CAD-filer fra de PC’er,
der fandtes på Det udleverede materiale indeholder imidlertid ingen af disse CAD-filer.
CAD-filerne må antages at indeholde tegninger af konstruktionerne af stridsprodukterne. Årsagen til at
tegningerne ikke er inkluderet i den foreløbige rapport må antages at være, at produktnavnene MPU1000,
MPU2000 eller MPU3000 ikke er anført på tegningerne eller i filnavnene.
Bevissikringsrapporten indeholder dog enkelte affotograferinger af billeder af CAD-tegninger.
Mappen mærket med ”Foto fra dokumentmappe på kontor med tekst: MPU 1000 "mini"” indeholder bl.a.
billeder af CAD-tegninger med følgende filnavne:
• 000186-20240830_161742.jpg
• 000186-20240830_161738.jpg
• 000186-20240830_161825.jpg
• 000186-20240830_161917.jpg
Mappen mærket med ”Foto fra dokumentmappe på kontor med tekst: MPU 3000"” indeholder bl.a.
billeder med følgende filnavne:
• 20240830_162300.jpg, som indeholder en liste med CAD tegningsnummersystemet
• 20240830_162328.jpg og 20240830_162300.jpg, som viser CAD-tegninger af batterierne
• 20240830_162642.jpg og 20240830_162642.jpg, som viser yderligere CAD nummerering.
• 20240830_162944.jpg og 20240830_163007.jpg, som viser CAD-tegninger af et opdateret
batterisystem.
Ingen af disse affotograferede CAD-tegninger omfatter dog de dele af stridsprodukterne, som er relevante
for nærværende sag.
Rekvirenten anmoder derfor om at få udleveret alle de bevissikrede CAD-filer, da disse er af afgørende
betydning for at fastslå eksistensen af den formodede krænkelse af stridspatentet.
Den IT-sagkyndiges adgang til øvrigt materiale
Følgende anføres på side 2 i den IT-sagkyndiges rapport: ”Der er bemærket en afvigelse i postkassen
hvor kun mails fra den seneste 1½ uge i forhold til 4. oktober 2024 var tilgængelige i
“Sendt post”-mappen, trods en langt længere historik i indbakke og andre mapper.”
Årsagen hertil kan være, at der er foretaget sletning af mails i ”Sendt post-mappen” af personer med
adgang til postkassen.
6
Rekvirenten fastholder, at der skal udleveres administratorlogin til Microsoft 365, da denne administratorlogin må antages at omfatte rekvisiti e-mail konto. At kontoen som påstået administreres af HGSystem Norge AS medfører ikke, at rekvisitus kan modsætte sig udleveringen.
Rekvirenten fastholder desuden, at der skal udarbejdes en rapport på baggrund af det relevante materiale, som findes på den beslaglagte Apple-computer. Ifølge den IT-sagkyndig vil Apple-computeren have data som repræsenterer situationen indtil den 30.08.2024.
Der henvises til domstolens kendelse om tvangsbøder, hvoraf det fremgår, at rekvisiti i forening skal ”betale tvangsbøder på 5.000 Euro pr. dag til Domstolen, indtil de til Domstolen oplyser brugernavn og kodeord til økonomisystemet e-conomics og Microsoft 365, oplyser brugernavn og kodeord til rekvisiti e-mail samt oplyser de relevante koder til den bærbare krypterede computer, der blev beslaglagt under bevissikringen, således at den uvildige it-ekspert kan få adgang hertil.”
Domstolen opfordres til at påbegynde opkrævning af tvangsbøderne, og at opkrævningen fortsættes indtil den rekvisitus har opfyldt domstolens kendelse om tvangsbøder.
Af e-mail af 7. januar 2025 fra rekvisiti fremgår bl.a. følgende:
”… CAD-tegninger
Rekvisiti bestrider, at rekvirenten på nuværende tidspunkt skal have mulighed for at ændre omfanget af bevissikringsundersøgelsen. Det må antages, at rekvirenten forsøger at opnå en sådan udvidelse af omfanget alene af den årsag, at der ikke i det allerede udleverede materiale fra bevissikringen findes nogen dokumentation, som støtter rekvirentens sag. Det giver imidlertid ikke rekvirenten grundlag for at ændre omfanget af bevissikringsundersøgelsen, som allerede er fastlagt på baggrund af de søgetermer, som parterne netop opnåede enighed om forud for undersøgelsens gennemførelse.
Det bemærkes i øvrigt i den forbindelse, at netop CAD-tegningerne udgør yderst vigtige forretningshemmeligheder for rekvisiti, og at der er tale om fortrolige dokumenter. Udleveringen af disse tegninger vil således give rekvirenten et direkte indblik i opbygningen af rekvisiti produkter, og udleveringen vil derfor risikere at påføre rekvisiti uoprettelig skade – særligt ved udleveringen til en konkurrent.
Hvis Domstolen på trods af ovenstående bemærkninger agter at udlevere CAD-tegningerne, gøres det gældende, at udleveringen alene skal omfatte de dele af Stridsprodukterne, som er relevant for sagen – og ikke fuldstændige filer, som viser hele opbygningen af produkterne. Rekvisiti anmoder desuden om, at der pålægges fortrolighed i forbindelse med udleveringen, så CAD-tegninger ikke kan udleveres direkte til eller vises til rekvirenten, men alene til rekvirentens repræsentanter.
Den IT-sagkyndiges adgang til øvrigt materiale
I relation til den it-sagkyndiges bemærkninger i afsnit 7 i bevissikringsrapporten og rekvirentens bemærkninger nedenfor, kan det oplyses, at rekvisiti allerede har udleveret oplysninger om koden til den bærbare computer, som blev beslaglagt under bevissikringsforretningen. Det fremgår da også direkte af den it-sagkyndiges bevissikringsrapport under afsnit 5.
7
Rekvisiti er derfor også uforstående over for, hvorfor den it-sagkyndige ikke har tilgået den beslaglagte
computer. Rekvisiti anmoder derfor om, at dette sker snarest muligt, og at der herefter rettes henvendelse
til med henblik på udlevering af den beslaglagte computer. Som tidligere oplyst er der tale
om en computer som anvendes privat af og hans familie, hvorfor computeren ønskes
tilbageleveret, straks der er foretaget undersøgelse af computeren.
I relation til administratoradgang til Microsoft 365 kan det desuden oplyses, at også denne er givet til den
it-sagkyndige. Microsoft 365 konto er givet fuld administrationsrettighed tilbage fra den
norske afdeling inklusiv til HGSystem AS (det norske selskab). Dette er sket for flere måneder siden, og
rekvisiti er derfor uforstående over for den it-sagkyndiges ‘anbefalinger’ i bevissikringsrapporten, og at der
endnu ikke er foretaget en undersøgelse af materialet. Det fastholdes, at rekvisiti ikke er eller har været
forpligtet til at udlevere disse oplysninger, men det er gjort i ønsket om at være imødekommende. Rekvisiti
fastholder i øvrigt, at oplysninger fra det norske selskab ikke kan inkluderes i bevissikringsrapporten.
Den it-sagkyndiges kommentarer og anbefalinger
Rekvisiti er noget forundret over den it-sagkyndiges kommentarer og anbefalinger i bevissikringsrapporten,
herunder særligt i afsnit 6 og 7. Det er misforstået, at den it-sagkyndige skal påtage sig en sådan rolle og
advokerer for rekvirentens synspunkter under sagen, herunder bistår rekvirenten med anbefalinger under
sagen. Rekvisiti anmoder på den baggrund om, at Domstolen indskærper over for den it-sagkyndige, at
hans opgave er at bistå Domstolen med en uvildig undersøgelse. Rekvisiti forbeholder sig at fremsætte
begæring om, at der udpeges en anden it-sagkyndig…”
Af e-mail senere samme dag den 7. januar 2025 fra rekvirenten fremgår bl.a. følgende:
”… CAD-tegninger
Søgeordene er alene en hjælp, som skal sætte den i stand til at fremfinde det materiale blandt det
bevissikrede materiale, som har relevans for sagen. Anvendelsen af specifikke søgeord, som den IT-sagkyndige
kan benytte ved gennemgang af det bevissikrede materiale, er således i alle parters interesse,
da de kan medvirke til at holde omkostningerne til den IT-sagkyndiges honorar nede. At der peges på
bestemte søgeord er ikke udtryk for en ændring af sagens genstand eller rekvirentens nedlagte påstande.
I dansk retspraksis er det fastslået, at en rekvirent ikke er afskåret fra videre søgninger i bevissikret
materiale, som ligger udover de søgeord, som rekvirenten har angivet indledningsvis i sagen, jf.
U.2022.3889.ØLK. Der er ikke nogen holdepunkter, at det skulle forholde sig anderledes i regi af UPC.
Rekvirenten er selvfølgelig indforstået med, at der kun udleveres de CAD-tegninger, der er relevante for
sagen, og at tegningerne i første omgang kun udleveres til rekvirentens repræsentanter, som er pålagt
fortrolighed.
Det skal dog understreges, at de udleverede tegninger ikke skal begrænses til at omfattede de specifikke
tekniske træk, som var stridspunktet i bevissikringssagen (”1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only
from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit)”.
Rekvisitus har under hovedsagen mulighed for at bestride, at stridsprodukterne indeholder andre tekniske
træk omfattet af stridspatentet end de ovenfor anførte. Rekvirentens repræsentanter skal derfor – i det
8
omfang at sådanne tegninger findes – have udleveret alle tegninger, som viser den tekniske indretning af
stridsprodukterne, og som har betydning for at kunne fastslå en krænkelse af stridspatentet.
Den IT-sagkyndiges adgang til øvrigt materiale
Rekvirenten er enig med rekvisitus i, at den IT-sagkyndige snarest muligt skal tilgå den beslaglagte
computer, forudsat at den udleverede kode kan anvendes.
Det fremgår af den IT-sagkyndiges rapport, at rekvisitus ikke udleverede administratorlogin til Microsoft
365 på det virtuelle møde den 4. oktober 2024. Rekvisitus oplyser nu, at administratoradgangen er givet til
den IT-sagkyndige ”for flere måneder siden”.
Domstolen anmodes derfor om at bede den IT-sagkyndige bekræfte modtagelsen af administratorlogin
samt oplyse datoen for modtagelse af dette login.
Den it-sagkyndiges kommentarer og anbefalinger
Ifølge domstolens kendelse er IT-sagkyndig udpeget som uvildig ekspert til at bistå domstolen
med at udarbejde en rapport for undersøgelsen.
Det er rekvirentens opfattelse, at kommentarerne og anbefalingerne i den foreløbige bevissikringsrapport
er udtryk for, hvad der ifølge den IT-sagkyndige udgjorde hindringer under bevissikringsforretningen – og
hvad der fortsat udgør hindringer – for at den IT-sagkyndige kan udarbejde en færdig rapport i
overensstemmelse med, hvad der er fastsat i domstolens kendelse. Den foreløbige rapport er ikke stilet til
rekvirenten men derimod domstolen, og kommentarerne og anbefalingerne er derfor stilet til domstolen. ’’
Det er derfor ukorrekt, når rekvisitus gør gældende, at den IT-sagkyndige ”bistår rekvirenten med
anbefalinger under sagen”.
Såfremt der udpeges en anden IT-sagkyndig på rekvisiti begæring, agter rekvirenten at fremsætte krav om,
at rekvisiti skal godtgøre omkostningerne til denne nye IT-sagkyndige eller stille sikkerhed for dennes
honorar…”
Af e-mail af 9. januar 2025 fra rekvisiti fremgår bl.a. følgende:
”… CAD-tegninger
Rekvisiti fastholder sine bemærkninger i mail af 7. januar 2025. Det bemærkes supplerende, at begge
parter netop har forholdt sig til omfanget af bevissikringen ved at identificere de relevante søgetermer.
Rekvirentens anmodning om yderligere materiale er således alene begrundet i det faktum, at rekvirenten
ikke har fået udleveret materiale, som støtter rekvirentens sag. En sådan proces vil derfor kunne fortsætte i
evigheder, såfremt rekvirenten tillades at fortsætte med at fremsætte nye anmodninger. Det har aldrig
været hensigten med bevissikringsinstituttet under UPCA eller i øvrigt. Rekvirentens anmodning bør derfor
nægtes af Domstolen.
Hvis Domstolen på trods af rekvisiti bemærkninger agter at udvide omfanget af bevissikringen, så
fastholdes det, at udleveringen alene skal omfatte de dele af Stridsprodukterne, som er relevant for sagen –
og at udlevering af det relevante materiale alene skal ske til rekvirentens repræsentanter under
fortrolighed. Vi kan konstatere, at rekvirenten er enig i dette. I lyset af at den it-sagkyndige næppe vil være
9
i stand til at udpege de relevante dele af CAD-filerne, så foreslås den fremgangsmåde, at alle bevissikrede CAD-filer fremsendes til rekvisiti repræsentanter forud for udlevering til rekvirentens repræsentanter med en frist for at komme med bemærkninger til hvilke dele af det sikrede materiale, som er relevant for sagen.
Den it-sagkyndiges kommentarer og anbefalinger
Rekvisiti kan konstatere, at der er enighed om, den it-sagkyndiges opgave er, som uvildig ekspert, at bistå domstolen med at udarbejde en rapport for undersøgelsen. Det må dog konstateres, at uanset hvem kommentarerne/anbefalingerne er rettet imod, så påtager den it-sagkyndige sig at advokere sagen, hvilket ligger uden for den it-sagkyndiges opdrag. Den it-sagkyndiges bemærkninger om sagens forløb mv. er irrelevant for den it-sagkyndiges bevissikringsrapport. Den it-sagkyndige skal alene forholde sig til den relevante dataindsamling på baggrund af domstolens instrukser og helt nøgternt rapportere sine fund, herunder naturligvis rapportere til Domstolen, hvis der er problemer med indsamlingen af data. Synspunkterne om it-ekspertens uheldige partiske ageren fastholdes derfor…”
Af e-mail senere samme dag den 9. januar 2025 fra rekvirenten fremgår bl.a. følgende:
”… Idet rekvirentens tidligere bemærkninger fastholdes, giver rekvisiti advokats nedenstående bemærkninger anledning til følgende afsluttende bemærkning:
CAD-tegninger
Rekvisitus blander tilsyneladende spørgsmålet om omfanget af bevissikringen sammen med spørgsmålet om den IT-sagkyndiges gennemgang af det bevissikrede materiale.
Omfanget af bevissikringen er fastsat i domstolens kendelse af den 26. august 2024, som er stadfæstet i kendelse af den 19. december 2024. Ifølge kendelserne er rekvirenten berettiget til at få udleveret alt materiale, der viser eksistensen og omfanget af krænkelser af rettighederne til stridspatentet.
Rekvirentens anmodning om udlevering af CAD-tegninger er derfor ikke, som anført af rekvisitus, en anmodning om ”at udvide omfanget af bevissikringen”…”
Af e-mail senere samme dag den 9. januar 2025 fra rekvisiti fremgår bl.a. følgende:
”… Idet rekvisiti fastholder sine bemærkninger og hermed blot skal notere, at rekvisiti ikke blander noget sammen, anmoder vi om Domstolens beslutning i relation til de rejste spørgsmål…”
Domstolens begrundelse
CAD-filer
I henhold til artikel artikel 60, stk 1, i UPC-aftalen kan Domstolen på begæring af rekvirenten allerede, inden realitetsbehandling af en sag påbegyndes, afsige kendelse om, at der omgående skal iværksættes effektive foreløbige foranstaltninger med henblik på at sikre det relevante bevismateriale i forbindelse med den påståede krænkelse, under forudsætning af, at fortrolige
10
oplysninger beskyttes. Dette kræver, at rekvirenten har fremført et rimeligt tilgængeligt
bevismateriale til støtte for, at patentet er blevet krænket eller vil blive krænket.
Sådanne foranstaltninger kan omfatte en udførlig beskrivelse af de omtvistede produkter med eller
uden udtagning af prøver eller en beslaglæggelse af disse og, når det er hensigtsmæssigt, af de
materialer og redskaber, der har været anvendt ved fremstillingen og/eller distributionen af
produkterne og af de hertil hørende dokumenter, jf. artikel 60, stk. 2.
Domstolens lokale afdeling i København afsagde i overensstemmelse hermed kendelse om
bevissikring den 26. august 2024 i overensstemmelse med rekvirentens anmodning af 16. august
2024 vedrørende europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202 B1 om omgående sikring af bevismateriale og
besigtigelse af ejendom uden forudgående varsel af rekvisiti.
Rekvirenten blev således meddelt tilladelse til omgående at sikre bevismateriale, der viser
eksistensen og omfanget af krænkelser af rettighederne til europæisk patent nr. 4 238 202 B1 ved
at få adgang til adressen gennem Fogedretten i Svendborg,
Danmark.
Domstolen lægger til grund, at der under bevissikringsforretningen af IT-eksperten blev kopieret
bl.a. CAD-filer fra de PC’er, der fandtes på Filer, som ikke indgår i det udleverede
materiale i bevissikringsrapporten.
Det må lægges til grund, at årsagen til, at filerne ikke indgår i det udleverede materiale, er, at de
pågældende CAD-filer ikke indeholder de søgeord, som rekvirenten havde begrænset
bevissikringen til at omfatte.
Domstolen finder, at reglerne om bevissikring ikke hindrer, at der efterfølgende foretages en
yderligere undersøgelse af det relevante materiale, som er blevet sikret under bevissikringen.
Domstolen finder, at de pågældende CAD-filer kan være relevante i forbindelse med den påståede
krænkelse.
På den baggrund finder Domstolen, at de pågældende CAD-filer kan udleveres til
repræsentanterne for rekvirenten (advokat Mikkel Kleis og patentagent Lasse Rosenlund
Lauridsen).
Repræsentanterne er forpligtede til at hemmeligholde eventuelle forretningshemmeligheder og
andre fortrolige oplysninger, der skulle komme dem til kendskab herigennem, jf. artikel 58 i UPC-
aftalen og regel 196, stk. 1, 2. pkt., i procesreglementet.
11
Tvangsbøder
IT-eksperten har meddelt Domstolen, at han har fået adgang til Apple-computeren,
herunder fået de relevante koder, så han kunne udfærdige supplerende bevissikringsrapport
herom. Umiddelbart ses der således på nuværende tidspunkt at være blevet udleveret alle de
påkrævede koder for, at bevissikringen har kunnet gennemføres.
Domstolen finder herefter, at der ikke på det foreliggende grundlag nu kan pålægges rekvisiti at
betale de af Domstolen ved kendelse af 4. september 2024 fastsatte løbende tvangsbøder.
Domstolen vil dog ved sin endelige afgørelse om sagsomkostninger kunne tage hensyn til de
yderligere omkostninger, som den forsinkede udlevering af de relevante koder fra rekvisiti kan have
medført i forhold til betalingen af omkostningerne til den uvildige IT-ekspert.
Supplerende bevissikringsrapport
Den af den udpegede uvildige IT-ekspert udarbejdede supplerende rapport fra
bevissikringen kan udleveres til repræsentanterne for sagens parter, når den er modtaget af
Domstolen.
Repræsentanterne er forpligtede til at hemmeligholde eventuelle forretningshemmeligheder og
andre fortrolige oplysninger, der skulle komme dem til kendskab herigennem.
IT-ekspertens habilitet
Domstolen bemærker, at rekvisiti har fremsat bemærkninger vedrørende IT-eksperten
habilitet grundet det anførte i bevissikringsrapportens punkt. 6 og 7. Rekvisiti har dog ikke gjort
gældende, at den it-sagkyndige som sådan er inhabil, eller begæret anden IT-ekspert udpeget.
Domstolen bemærker i den forbindelse, at de fremsatte bemærkninger fra IT-eksperten under punkt
6 alene må anses som værende faktiske oplysninger, ligesom det anførte i punkt 7 om den videre
fremgangsmåde må anses som muligheder for at fuldføre dennes opgave under bevissikringen.
Domstolen er løbende i kontakt med IT-eksperten og kan bekræfte, at IT-eksperten er fuldt ud
bekendt med sin opgave og rolle under bevissikringen.
Sagsomkostninger
Afgørelse om sagsomkostninger udskydes indtil hovedsagen.
Domstolens afgørelse
Bevissikrede CAD-filer kan udleveres til repræsentanterne for rekvirenten (advokat Mikkel Kleis og
patentagent Lasse Rosenlund Lauridsen).
12
Repræsentanterne er forpligtede til at hemmeligholde eventuelle forretningshemmeligheder og
andre fortrolige oplysninger, der skulle komme dem til kendskab herigennem.
Der pålægges ikke på det foreliggende grundlag rekvisiti at betale de af Domstolen ved kendelse af
4. september 2024 fastsatte løbende tvangsbøder.
Den af den udpegede uvildige IT-ekspert udarbejdede supplerende rapport fra
bevissikringen kan udleveres til repræsentanterne for sagens parter, når rapporten modtages hos
Domstolen.
Repræsentanterne er forpligtede til at hemmeligholde eventuelle forretningshemmeligheder og
andre fortrolige oplysninger, der skulle komme dem til kendskab herigennem.
Afgørelse om sagsomkostninger udskydes indtil hovedsagen.
Parterne kan i henhold til bestemmelserne i artikel 73 i UPC-aftalen og regel 220 i
procesreglementet senest 15 kalenderdage efter at have modtaget kendelsen appellere
denne til Appeldomstolen.
Udstedt i København den 3. marts 2025
Navn og underskrift
Peter Juul Agergaard
DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
Main file reference: ACT_47484/2024
UPC number: UPC_CFI_492/2024
Type of procedure: Application for preserving evidence
Peter Juul
Agergaar
d
Digitalt signeret
af Peter Juul
Agergaard
Dato: 2025.03.03
11:23:55 +01'00'

Machine Translation:

Copenhagen — Local Division
UPC _CFl_492/2024
ACT_47484/2024
ORD_10371/2025
Decision
Delivered by the Local Division of the Unified Patent Court in
Copenhagen on 3 March 2025 concerning EP 4 238 202 B1
The decision concerns European patent No. 4 238 202 B1 and relates, inter alia, to whether CAD files secured as evidence
files can be disclosed to the applicant and whether the Court should impose fixed penalties.
Applicant:
Hybridgenerator ApS
Nørrevang 15 Nørre Lyndelse 5792 Årslev, Denmark
(represented by Mikkel Kleis, lawyer, and Lasse Rosenlund Lauridsen, patent agent)
vs
Defendant
HGSystem ApS
(lawyer Allan Christensen and European patent agent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
HGSystem Holding ApS
(lawyer Allan Christensen and European patent agent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
Infotech Concept ApS
(lawyer Allan Christensen and European patent agent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
Infotech Holding ApS
(lawyer Allan Christensen and European patent agent Jacob Karstad Meyland)
2
(lawyer Allan Christensen and European patent agent Jacob Meyland)
(collectively ‘the defendants’)
The contested patent
European patent No. 4 238 202 B1
Judge
The order was issued by a single judge, presiding judge Peter Agergaard, in accordance with
Rule 194(3) of the Rules of Procedure.
Language of the case
Danish
Details of the case
The local division of the Court in Copenhagen issued an order for the preservation of evidence on 26 August 2024
accordance with the applicant's request of 16 August 2024 concerning European patent
No. 4 238 202 B1 for immediate preservation of evidence and inspection of property without
prior notice to the opposing party.
The applicant was thus granted permission to immediately secure evidence showing
the existence and extent of infringements of the rights to European patent no. 4 238 202 B1
by gaining access to the address through the Bailiff's Court in
Svendborg, Denmark, in order to:
- Inspect the hybrid generators models MPU 1000, MPU 2000 and
MPU 3000 and prepare a detailed description of these products.
- Make an inventory of any stock of hybrid generators models MPU 1000, MPU 2000
and MPU 3000.
- Copy IT systems, electronic storage media and physical material containing
financial information and invoice material,
- Copy email correspondence and other documents, including those relating to
product development, manufacture, import, export (if applicable), sales and marketing.
The court appointed as an independent IT expert to assist the bailiff in
conducting the investigation, preparing a report on the investigation and sending this
report to the Court's local division in Copenhagen no later than 14 days after the preservation of evidence
has been carried out.
3
It was stipulated in the order that the claimant must allow the bailiff, the appointed IT expert and
the representatives of the applicant to have access to the address
in accordance with the content of this order, including, inter alia, to provide the
relevant passwords to the IT systems so that the preservation of evidence could be carried out.
The order further stated that if the applicant failed to comply with the conditions laid down in the order,
the applicant could be ordered to pay a penalty payment to the Court.
The order stated that the Court's order could be enforced once the applicant had
provided specific security, which the applicant paid to UPC immediately after the order was issued.
The order of the Court was enforced by the Bailiff's Court in Svendborg, Denmark, on 30 August 2024.
The Court's order was enforced by the Bailiff's Court in Svendborg, Denmark, on 30 August
2024.
It appeared from the transcript received from the court register of 30 August 2024 from the Bailiff's Court in Svendborg,
Denmark, that the preservation of evidence was not completed due to lack of access to the cloud-based
solution and the data therein. The court records showed, among other things, that the claimant, contrary to the Court's order,
would not disclose the username and password for the e-conomics financial system and the claimant's email address.
In addition, the defendant refused to disclose the relevant codes for the encrypted Apple laptop
that was seized during the securing of evidence. The independent IT expert was therefore unable to access
the contents of this computer.
The defendant had therefore not complied with the conditions set out in the Court's order of 26 August 2024 to
hand over the relevant passwords to the IT systems so that the securing of evidence could be carried out.
On that basis, the Court ruled in its order of 4 September 2024 that the requisitioning authorities, jointly and severally,
were to pay a penalty payment of EUR 5,000 per day to the Court until the requisitioning authorities provided the Court with
the username and password for the e-conomics financial system and Microsoft 365, the username and
password for the requisitioner's email, and the relevant codes for the encrypted laptop
seized during the securing of evidence, so that the independent IT expert could gain access to it.
The penalty payments were to be paid from the date on which the order was served on the requisitioner.
Once the requisitioner had provided the required information, the requester was to communicate the search terms on the basis of which
the IT expert was to find the information.
On 30 September 2024, the requisitioning authority requested, pursuant to Rule 197(3) of the Rules of Procedure, a
review of the decision of the local division of the Court in Copenhagen on the securing of evidence on 26 August
2024.
4
By order of 19 December 2024, the local division of the Court in Copenhagen decided that the order
of 26 August 2024 to grant the applicant's request concerning European patent No. 4 238 202
B1 for immediate preservation of evidence and inspection of property without prior notice
the requisitioner pursuant to Article 60 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 196 of the Rules of Procedure should be upheld.
The preliminary report prepared by the appointed independent IT expert
was handed over to the representatives of the parties to the proceedings. The representatives were obliged to
keep confidential any business secrets and other confidential information that might
come to their knowledge in this connection.
On 15 January 2025, the Court informed the parties that the IT expert had been given access
to the Apple computer, including the relevant codes, so that he could prepare a report on the preservation of evidence
in this regard.
The IT expert subsequently stated that he had exported documents, emails from
the email account that were cached locally on the computer, and images that were not private from the computer.
On 27 February 2025, the IT expert announced that the supplementary report on the preservation of evidence
in accordance with the agreed search terms had been provisionally completed and that it would be sent to
the court immediately thereafter.
The IT expert subsequently stated that he had now finished examining the seized Apple computer,
so that it could be returned.
Claims
The applicant has requested that all the CAD files secured as evidence be handed over, as these are of
crucial importance in determining the existence of the alleged infringement of the contested patent.
The applicant's representatives must, to the extent that such drawings exist, be provided with all
drawings showing the technical design of the contested products and which are relevant to
establishing an infringement of the contested patent.
The applicant has further requested the Court to commence collection of the fixed
and requested that collection be continued until the respondent has complied with the court's
order.
The respondent has objected to any change in the scope of the evidence preservation investigation,
alternatively that the disclosure should only include those parts of the Contested Products that are relevant to
the case – and not complete files showing the entire structure of the products, and that
confidentiality be imposed in connection with the surrender so that CAD drawings cannot be surrendered
directly to or shown to the applicant, but only to the applicant's representatives.
The applicant has also objected to the imposition of the fixed penalties.
5
The parties' submissions
By email dated 3 January 2025, the applicant informed the Court, among other things, as follows:
‘... The attached preliminary report on the preservation of evidence gives the applicant reason to make the following comments:
the following comments:
CAD drawings
As stated in the report, CAD files were copied from the PCs found at the premises during the evidence preservation proceedings.
However, the material provided does not contain any of these CAD files.
The CAD files must be assumed to contain drawings of the designs of the combat products. The reason why
the drawings are not included in the preliminary report must be assumed to be that the product names MPU1000,
MPU2000 or MPU3000 are not stated on the drawings or in the file names.
However, the evidence preservation report contains a few photographs of images of CAD drawings.
The folder labelled ‘Photo from document folder in office with text: MPU 1000 “mini”’ contains, among other things,
images of CAD drawings with the following file names:
• 000186-20240830_161742.jpg
• 000186-20240830_161738.jpg
• 000186-20240830_161825.jpg
• 000186-20240830_161917.jpg
The folder labelled ‘Photos from document folder in office with text: MPU 3000’ contains, among other things,
images with the following file names:
• 20240830_162300.jpg, which contains a list with the CAD drawing number system
• 20240830_162328.jpg and 20240830_162300.jpg, which show CAD drawings of the batteries
• 20240830_162642.jpg and 20240830_162642.jpg, which show additional CAD numbering.
• 20240830_162944.jpg and 20240830_163007.jpg, showing CAD drawings of an updated
battery system.
However, none of these photographed CAD drawings include the parts of the contended products that are relevant
to the present case.
The requester therefore requests that all the CAD files secured as evidence be handed over, as these are of crucial importance
in determining the existence of the alleged infringement of the combat patent.
The IT expert's access to other material
The following is stated on page 2 of the IT expert's report: ‘A deviation has been noted in the mailbox
where only emails from the last 1½ weeks prior to 4 October 2024 were available in the
‘Sent mail‘ folder, despite a much longer history in the inbox and other folders.’
The reason for this may be that emails in the ‘Sent mail’ folder have been deleted by persons with
access to the mailbox.
6
The requester maintains that the administrator login for Microsoft 365 must be provided, as this administrator login must be assumed to include the requisitioner's email account. The fact that the account is allegedly administered by HGSystem Norge AS does not mean that the requisitioner can oppose the disclosure.
The requester also maintains that a report must be prepared based on the relevant material found on the seized Apple computer. According to the IT expert, the Apple computer will contain data representing the situation until 30 August 2024.
Reference is made to the court's order on coercive fines, which states that the requisitioners must jointly ‘pay coercive fines of EUR 5,000 per day to the Court until they provide the Court with the username and password for the e-conomics and Microsoft 365 financial systems and provide the username and password for the e-conomics and Microsoft 365 financial systems.’ day to the court until they provide the court with the username and password for the e-conomics financial system and Microsoft 365, provide the username and password for the requisitioned email and provide the relevant codes for the encrypted laptop seized during the seizure of evidence so that the independent IT expert can access it.’
The court is requested to commence collection of the penalty payments and to continue collection until the recipient has complied with the court's order on penalty payments.
The following is stated in an email dated 7 January 2025 from the recipient:
‘... CAD drawings
The respondent disputes that the applicant should at this stage be allowed to change the scope of the evidence preservation investigation. It must be assumed that the applicant is seeking such an extension of the scope solely because the material already provided from the evidence preservation investigation does not contain any documentation supporting the applicant's case. However, this does not give the applicant grounds to change the scope of the evidence preservation investigation, which has already been determined on the basis of the search terms agreed upon by the parties prior to the investigation.
It should also be noted in this connection that the CAD drawings in particular constitute extremely important trade secrets for the applicant and that these are confidential documents. The disclosure of these drawings would thus give the applicant direct insight into the structure of the claimant's products, and disclosure would therefore risk causing irreparable damage to the claimant, particularly if disclosed to a competitor.
If, despite the above comments, the Court intends to disclose the CAD drawings, it is argued that the disclosure should only include those parts of the Disputed Products that are relevant to the case – and not complete files showing the entire structure of the products. The claimant also requests that confidentiality be imposed in connection with the disclosure so that the CAD drawings cannot be disclosed directly to or shown to the claimant, but only to the claimant's representatives.
The IT expert's access to other material
In relation to the IT expert's comments in section 7 of the evidence preservation report and the requester's comments below, it can be stated that the requester has already provided information about the code for the laptop that was seized during the evidence preservation proceedings. This is also stated directly in the IT expert's report on the preservation of evidence in section 5.
7
The applicant therefore also fails to understand why the IT expert has not accessed the seized computer.
The applicant therefore requests that this be done as soon as possible and that the applicant be contacted
with a view to the return of the seized computer. As previously stated, this is
a computer used privately by him and his family, which is why the computer is to be
returned as soon as it has been examined.
In relation to administrator access to Microsoft 365, it can also be stated that this has also been granted to the
IT expert. Full administrative rights to the Microsoft 365 account have been restored by the
Norwegian department, including to HGSystem AS (the Norwegian company). This happened several months ago, and
the requisitioner therefore does not understand the IT expert's ‘recommendations’ in the evidence preservation report and that
an investigation of the material has not yet been carried out. It is maintained that the requisitioner is not and has not been
obliged to disclose this information, but that it has been done in a spirit of cooperation. The requisitioner
also maintains that information from the Norwegian company cannot be included in the evidence preservation report.
Comments and recommendations of the IT expert
The requesting party is somewhat surprised by the comments and recommendations of the IT expert in the evidence preservation report,
in particular in sections 6 and 7. It is a misunderstanding that the IT expert is to assume such a role and
advocate the views of the applicant during the proceedings, including assisting the applicant with recommendations during the proceedings.
Against this background, the applicant requests that the Court of Justice emphasise to the IT expert that
his task is to assist the Court of Justice with an impartial investigation. The applicant reserves the right to submit
request that another IT expert be appointed...’
An email sent later on the same day, 7 January 2025, from the applicant states, among other things, the following:
‘... CAD drawings
The search terms are only an aid to enable it to find the material among the
evidence secured that is relevant to the case. The use of specific search terms that the IT expert
can use when reviewing the evidence secured is therefore in the interests of all parties,
as they can help to keep the IT expert's fees down. The fact that
specific search terms does not constitute a change in the subject matter of the case or the claims made by the applicant.
In Danish case law, it has been established that an applicant is not precluded from further searches in secured evidence
beyond the search terms specified by the applicant at the outset of the case, cf.
U.2022.3889.ØLK. There are no grounds for believing that this should be any different under the UPC.
The applicant is, of course, aware that only CAD drawings relevant to the case will be disclosed
the case and that the drawings will initially only be disclosed to the requester's representatives, who are bound by
confidentiality.
However, it should be emphasised that the drawings disclosed should not be limited to the specific
technical features that were the subject of the dispute in the evidence preservation case ("1) the grid-like AC power output is provided only
from the rechargeable energy storage unit via the inverter unit, and
2) the output from the primary energy source is only used to charge the rechargeable energy storage unit).
In the main proceedings, the respondent has the opportunity to dispute that the contested products contain other technical features
covered by the contested patent than those mentioned above. The applicant's representatives must therefore – to the extent that such drawings exist – provide all drawings showing the technical configuration of the contested products and which are relevant for
8
to the extent that such drawings exist – have provided all drawings showing the technical design of the
contested products and which are relevant to determining whether the contested patent has been infringed.
The IT expert's access to other material
The applicant agrees with the respondent that the IT expert must have access to the seized computer as soon as possible,
provided that the code provided can be used.
It appears from the IT expert's report that the respondent did not provide the administrator login for Microsoft
365 at the virtual meeting on 4 October 2024. The respondent now states that administrator access was granted to
the IT expert ‘several months ago’.
The court is therefore requested to ask the IT expert to confirm receipt of the administrator login
and to state the date of receipt of this login.
Comments and recommendations of the IT expert
According to the court's order, the IT expert has been appointed as an independent expert to assist the court
in preparing a report for the investigation.
It is the opinion of the requester that the comments and recommendations in the preliminary evidence preservation report
reflect what, in the opinion of the IT expert, constituted obstacles during the evidence preservation proceedings – and
what continues to constitute obstacles – to the IT expert's ability to prepare a final report in
accordance with the provisions of the court's order. The preliminary report is not addressed to
the requester but to the court, and the comments and recommendations are therefore addressed to the court. ‘’
It is therefore incorrect when the respondent claims that the IT expert is ‘assisting the requester with
recommendations during the proceedings’.
If another IT expert is appointed at the request of the applicant, the applicant intends to demand that
the applicant reimburse the costs of this new IT expert or provide security for his
fees...’
The email of 9 January 2025 from the applicant states, among other things, the following:
‘... CAD drawings
The requesting party maintains its comments in the email of 7 January 2025. It should be added that both
parties have just addressed the scope of the preservation of evidence by identifying the relevant search terms.
The requesting party's request for additional material is therefore based solely on the fact that the requesting party
has not been provided with material supporting the requester's case. Such a process could therefore continue indefinitely
if the requester were allowed to continue to make new requests. This has never
been the intention of the evidence preservation mechanism under the UPCA or otherwise. The requester's request should therefore
be rejected by the Court.
If, despite the requester's comments, the Court intends to extend the scope of the preservation order,
it is maintained that the disclosure must only include those parts of the Contested Products that are relevant to the case –
and that the disclosure of the relevant material must only be made to the applicant's representatives in
confidence. We note that the applicant agrees with this. In light of the fact that the IT expert is unlikely to be
9
able to identify the relevant parts of the CAD files, it is proposed that all CAD files subject to preservation of evidence be sent to the requesting party's representatives prior to disclosure to the requesting party's representatives, with a deadline for commenting on which parts of the preserved material are relevant to the case.
Comments and recommendations of the IT expert
The requesting party notes that there is agreement that the IT expert's task, as an independent expert, is to assist the court in preparing a report for the investigation. However, it must be noted that regardless of who the comments/recommendations are directed at, the IT expert undertakes to advocate the case, which is outside the scope of the IT expert's assignment. The IT expert's comments on the course of the case, etc., are irrelevant to the IT expert's report on the preservation of evidence. The IT expert must only consider the relevant data collection on the basis of the court's instructions and report his findings in a completely objective manner, including, of course, reporting to the court if there are problems with the collection of data. The views on the IT expert's unfortunate biased conduct are therefore maintained...’
An email sent later on the same day, 9 January 2025, from the applicant states, among other things, the following:
‘... While the applicant's previous comments are maintained, the applicant's lawyer's comments below give rise to the following concluding remark:
CAD drawings
The respondent appears to confuse the question of the scope of the preservation of evidence with the question of the IT expert's review of the preserved material.
The scope of the preservation of evidence is set out in the court's order of 26 August 2024, which was upheld in the order of 19 December 2024. According to the orders, the applicant is entitled to receive all material showing the existence and scope of infringements of the rights to the contested patent.
The applicant's request for the disclosure of CAD drawings is therefore not, as stated by the respondent, a request to ‘extend the scope of the preservation of evidence’...’
An email sent later on the same day, 9 January 2025, from the applicant states, among other things, the following:
‘... As the applicant maintains its comments and hereby merely notes that the applicant is not confusing anything, we request the Court's decision in relation to the questions raised...’
The Court's reasoning
CAD files
Pursuant to Article 60(1) of the UPC Agreement, the Court may, at the request of the applicant, order, even before the proceedings on the merits have commenced, that effective provisional measures be taken immediately to preserve the relevant evidence in connection with the alleged infringement, provided that confidential
10
information is protected. This requires that the applicant has provided reasonably accessible
evidence to support that the patent has been infringed or will be infringed.
Such measures may include a detailed description of the contested products with or
without taking samples or seizing them and, where appropriate, of the
materials and implements used in the manufacture and/or distribution of the
products and of the documents relating thereto, in accordance with Article 60(2).
The local division of the Court of Justice in Copenhagen accordingly issued an order on
26 August 2024 in accordance with the applicant's request of 16 August
2024 concerning European patent No 4 238 202 B1 for the immediate preservation of evidence and
the inspection of property without prior notice to the applicant.
The applicant was thus granted permission to immediately secure evidence showing
the existence and extent of infringements of the rights to European patent No. 4 238 202 B1 by
gaining access to the address through the Bailiff's Court in Svendborg,
Denmark.
The Court finds that during the evidence preservation procedure, the IT expert copied,
among other things, CAD files from the PCs found at Files that are not included in the material handed over
in the evidence preservation report.
It must be assumed that the reason why the files are not included in the material handed over is that the
CAD files in question do not contain the search terms to which the applicant had limited
the preservation of evidence.
The Court finds that the rules on preservation of evidence do not preclude a subsequent
further examination of the relevant material that has been secured during the preservation of evidence.
The Court finds that the CAD files in question may be relevant in connection with the alleged
infringement.
On that basis, the Court finds that the CAD files in question may be handed over to
the representatives of the applicant (lawyer Mikkel Kleis and patent agent Lasse Rosenlund
Lauridsen).
The representatives are obliged to keep confidential any business secrets and
other confidential information that may come to their knowledge in this connection, cf. Article 58 of the UPC Agreement
Agreement and Rule 196(1), second paragraph, of the Rules of Procedure.
11
Penalty payments
The IT expert has informed the Court that he has gained access to the Apple computer,
including the relevant codes, so that he can prepare a supplementary report on the preservation of evidence
thereon. At this stage, it therefore appears that all the
codes required for the preservation of evidence to be carried out have been provided.
The Court therefore finds that, on the basis of the information available, no order can now be made requiring
pay the ongoing penalty payments imposed by the Court in its order of 4 September 2024.
However, in its final decision on costs, the Court may take into account the
additional costs that the delayed disclosure of the relevant codes by the requisition may have
in relation to the payment of the costs of the independent IT expert.
Supplementary report on the preservation of evidence
The supplementary report on the preservation of evidence prepared by the independent IT expert appointed
may be handed over to the representatives of the parties to the proceedings once it has been received by the Court.
The representatives are obliged to keep confidential any business secrets and other confidential information that come to their knowledge in the course of their duties.
The representatives are obliged to keep confidential any business secrets and
other confidential information that may come to their knowledge in this connection.
Impartiality of the IT expert
The Court notes that the applicant has made comments regarding the impartiality of the IT expert
impartiality on the basis of the statements made in points 6 and 7 of the report on the taking of evidence. However, the applicant has not
argued that the IT expert as such is biased or requested that another IT expert be appointed.
The Court notes in this regard that the comments made by the IT expert in point
6 must be regarded as factual information, just as the statement in point 7 concerning the further
procedure must be regarded as options for completing his task during the preservation of evidence.
The court is in regular contact with the IT expert and can confirm that the IT expert is fully
aware of his task and role during the preservation of evidence.
Costs
The decision on costs is postponed until the main proceedings.
The court's decision
The CAD files secured as evidence may be handed over to the representatives of the applicant (lawyer Mikkel Kleis and patent agent Lasse Rosenlund Lauridsen).

The representatives are obliged to maintain the confidentiality of any trade secrets and
other confidential information that may come to their knowledge in this connection.
On the basis of the present case, the applicant is not required to pay the periodic penalty payments imposed by the Court in its order of 4 September 2024.
The supplementary report prepared by the appointed independent IT expert from the
preservation of evidence may be handed over to the representatives of the parties to the case once the report has been received by the Court.
The representatives are obliged to keep confidential any business secrets and
other confidential information that may come to their knowledge in this connection.
The decision on costs is reserved until the main proceedings.

The parties may, in accordance with the provisions of Article 73 of the UPC Agreement and Rule 220 of the Rules of Procedure, appeal
this order to the Court of Appeal.
Issued in Copenhagen on 3 March 2025.
Name and signature
Peter Juul Agergaard
DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
Main file reference: ACT_47484/2024
UPC number: UPC_CFI_492/2024
Type of procedure: Application for preserving evidence
Peter Juul
Agergaar
d
Digitally signed
by Peter Juul
Agergaard
Date: 2025.03.03
11:23:55 +01'00'