UPC: Supplementing Expert Opinion After Inspection Not Possible

Van Loon had applied to inspect and preserve evidence at Inverquark’s exhibition stand in advance of a potential main action, which went ahead despite a protective letter having been filed previously by the defendant (see our earlier article). The defendant was concerned that the expert’s opinion did not adequately reflect their product and consequently requested that the court-commissioned expert who prepared the original inspection report should prepare a supplementary opinion. This request was denied in UPC_CFI_1325/2025 by the Düsseldorf local division of the UPC.

The panel commented that, on one hand, Inverquark’s procedural rights after the ex-parte order for the preservation of evidence were adequately protected by the option to request a review under Rule 197.3 RoP and that, on the other hand, there was no legal basis for ordering the requested supplementary report. Although the expert had been commissioned by the court, they were not a “court expert” appointed under Rule 187