2026-10-14 - LD Düsseldorf - Topsoe v. Sypox et al. - UPC-CFI-0001696/2025
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC-CFI-0001696/2025
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Topsoe A/S v. SYPOX GmbH, Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH
Kernaussage: The Düsseldorf Local Division panel upheld a judge-rapporteur's order releasing to the applicant the expert's detailed description of an inspection, as far as it concerned an installation the defendant argued fell outside the inspection order.
2026-10-14 - LD Düsseldorf - Topsoe
v.
Sypox et al. - UPC-CFI-0001696/2025
notable
The Düsseldorf Local Division panel upheld a judge-rapporteur's order releasing to the applicant the expert's detailed description of an inspection, as far as it concerned an installation the defendant argued fell outside the inspection order. The finality of the earlier R. 197.3 RoP review order did not bar that objection, because an R. 197.3 review concerns only whether the ex parte order was rightly made, not its execution or the evidence gathered. On the merits, the panel held that where the inspected object does not bear the designation used in the operative part, the expert must interpret the order on site, and the Court only reviews whether the expert exceeded her margin of appreciation; whether components needed for infringement are missing is a matter for the merits. Facts introduced for the first time in an R. 333 RoP review — here an alleged third-party (TUM) confidentiality interest — are in principle disregarded, because the review examines the order already made, and a change of representative does not excuse the omission.
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).