UPC Court of Appeal curbs personnel interrogation in WEPA-Essity patent case
The Unified Patent Court's Court of Appeal ruled on 3 September 2026 that evidence-preservation orders under Art. 60 UPCA do not allow a bailiff or expert to question a defendant's personnel on technical details, on an appeal by WEPA Nederland against an ex parte order obtained by Essity. The Hague Local Division had granted that order on 17 April 2026 under Essity's patent on tissue paper containing Miscanthus pulp fibres, and it was executed at WEPA's premises on 21 April. The appeal court confirmed that a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed can alone justify an ex parte order, without urgency, and that such orders may cover commercial and promotional documents.
Why this mattersThe ruling sets UPC-wide limits on evidence-preservation inspections, relevant to any paper or packaging group enforcing or defending patents in Europe.
- Essity's EP 3 289 139 patent covers tissue paper comprising pulp fibres from Miscanthus.
- The Hague Local Division granted an ex parte preservation order against WEPA Nederland on 17 April 2026, executed on 21 April 2026 and confirmed on review.
- On 3 September 2026 the Court of Appeal held that Art. 60 UPCA does not let a bailiff or expert question defendant personnel on technical details.
- The court held that a demonstrable risk of evidence being destroyed can alone justify an ex parte order; urgency is not required.
- WEPA's objection to commercial and promotional documents was disregarded as not raised at first instance; the court said it would have failed anyway.