Production and Preservation of Evidence Sample Clauses

Production and Preservation of Evidence. 4.10 Parties to Proceedings

Production and Preservation of Evidence. Articles 59 and 60 as well as Rules 190 through 199 provide measures for the production and the preservation of evidence. It is of interest to note that the English text to the heading of the chapter of the Rules including rules on preservation of evidence specifically includes the French word “saisie”. Interesting features of the rules include: Where a party has presented reasonably available and plausible evidence in support of its claims and has, in substantiating those claims, specified evidence which lies in the control of the other party (or a third party), the Court may, on a reasoned request by the party specifying such evidence, order that other party or third party to produce such evidence. For the protection of confidential information, the Court may order that the evidence be disclosed to certain named persons only and be subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure.57 Additionally, under similar conditions, the court may order disclosure about the origin and distribution of infringing products, the quantities of such products and the identity of any third party involved in the production, use or distribution of infringing products.58 Rule 192 is entitled: “Order to Preserve Evidence and Inspect Premises”. Its provisions have similarities to those that apply to a saisie in France or Belgium. Requests for such an order may be made even before the start of proceedings and in appropriate cases ex parte59. The person entrusted with the task of preserving evidence must be “a professional person or expert, who guarantees expertise, independence and impartiality. Where appropriate and allowed under applicable national law, the person may be a bailiff or assisted by a bailiff. In no circumstances may an employee or director of the applicant be present at the execution of the measures.” The Court may restrict disclosure of the evidence found to named persons only and have them bound by an obligation of confidentiality. In general, the outcome of measures to preserve evidence may only be used in the proceedings on the merits of the case in respect of which the order was made.60 Article 61 and Rule 200 provide for freezing orders (similar to the old English Mareva injunctions) to prevent the removal of assets. The Article and Rule read as follows: Where a party has presented reasonably available and plausible evidence in support of its claim that a patent has been or is about to be infringed, the Court may, whether before or after proceedings have been ...