Evidence gathering in two countries: costs drivers
Gathering evidence in two countries for a patent dispute costs more than gathering it in one. The gap comes from duplicated procedure: each jurisdiction sets its own rules for requesting, translating and authenticating documents. The main drivers are the number of registries touched, whether translation is required, and whether the other side cooperates.
How the second country changes the file
Evidence held abroad is not simply copied and forwarded to the court hearing the case. The receiving court expects a chain that shows where each item came from and who handled it along the way. Two situations recur inside patent files and change the cost of that chain.
A deliverable that contains open-source components raises its own evidentiary questions, and those are covered separately in When open source is found inside a deliverable explained.
Evidence stored outside a paper trail — on a shared ledger, for instance — raises a different question: what the decision-maker actually inspects when the record itself is the fact in dispute. That is set out in On-chain and off-chain recordal step by step in detail.
What moves the cost
| Factor | Effect on the file |
|---|---|
| Number of jurisdictions | Each additional country adds a separate request, a separate contact point and a separate timeline. |
| Type of evidence | Documentary evidence moves faster than evidence held on a system that requires technical extraction. |
| Cooperation of the other side | A silent counterparty forces a formal request instead of a voluntary exchange, which adds weeks. |
| Translation | Any document not already in the language of the receiving court is translated before it is admitted. |
| Point of no return | Once a formal cross-border request is filed, withdrawing it does not restart the informal channel. |
Practical consequence
The practical effect of touching two countries is not a doubled bill. It is a bill that depends on how many of the five factors above stack together. A file that is entirely documentary, in one shared language, with a cooperative counterparty, costs a fraction of a file where every factor works against it.
What to do
- The instructing partner maps the evidence within the first week: what exists, where it sits, and who holds it.
- Local counsel in each country confirms the format — paper, database extract, or repository — before any request is drafted.
- The team clears any personal data question through the Data processing agreement in detail already in place before the file leaves its country of origin.
- The requesting party tries the informal channel first and moves to a formal request only once that channel is exhausted.
- Translation is scheduled only for documents that survive a relevance screen, not for the whole file.
- The team records every step of the transfer, since a gap in the chain is challenged later at the merits stage.
Who decides
The court seized of the substantive claim decides whether foreign evidence is admissible and how much weight it carries. The country where the evidence physically sits decides the channel through which it may leave — direct request, mutual assistance, or a formal order. These two decisions do not always align, and the gap between them is where most delay sits.
Scenarios
If the other side holds the evidence and does not respond, the requesting party moves to a formal request through the court. This adds time but does not stop the case.
If the evidence sits outside the EU, an additional authentication step is likely, and the timeline extends further than the two-country baseline.
If the evidence is already tokenised or recorded on a ledger, the recordal method determines what proof of authenticity the other side can demand.
Limit
This page describes the procedure, not the fee schedule and not the outcome of any given dispute. It does not set national deadlines, since those vary by jurisdiction and change independently of this text. Anyone facing a live deadline should confirm it with counsel in the country holding the evidence, not from a general procedural page.
Sources and limits
Where the open question is not the process but the state of a specific counterparty's own records, a due diligence report can establish facts that a procedural page cannot answer, for example a Counterparty in Italy in detail report.
Proven: checked on the date of publication. This page describes the general procedure followed by courts and registries handling cross-border patent evidence. No specific national statute is cited, because those rules vary by country and are outside the scope of this procedural note.
Related publications
The cost drivers for the underlying litigation itself are set out separately in Costs and security for costs step by step.
Next step
If a joint development partner has already filed alone and evidence gathering is the next move, see What to do first in this situation.
If the evidence you need concerns underreported royalties rather than a patent claim, see When royalties are underreported in detail.
If an audit clause has already been refused and evidence is now the only route left, see When an audit clause is refused explained.
FAQ
How long does evidence gathering in two countries take in practice?
It depends on cooperation and format more than on distance. A cooperative counterparty with documentary evidence can close the exchange in weeks. A silent counterparty forces a formal request, which typically adds months rather than weeks.
Which documents are needed to start?
A short inventory of what exists, where it is held, and who controls access. Without that inventory, no request — formal or informal — can be drafted accurately.
What happens if the other side does not respond?
Silence does not stop the process. It moves the request from an informal exchange to a formal channel through the court, which is slower but has an outcome either way.