Jaguar Land Rover has been ordered to return or destroy documents it seized from BYD's Dutch offices in August, after the District Court of The Hague ruled on November 11 that the material was never needed for its Defender design case against the Chinese automaker.
Judge H.F.R. van Heemstra gave JLR 24 hours from formal notice to comply, with a penalty of €50,000 (about $55,000) for every hour it runs late, capped at €500,000 ($556,000). The underlying question of whether the BYD Ti7 copies the Land Rover Defender remains unresolved and is being heard in separate proceedings.
What the court decided
The seized documents came from court-appointed bailiffs acting on a JLR-requested order at BYD's offices in Schiedam and Hoofddorp. The haul reportedly included Ti7 launch plans, technical data and financial records.
Van Heemstra found the files were not necessary to show the Ti7 copied the Defender's exterior design, nor to calculate damages, because BYD has not sold the Ti7 in the European Union. "The ruling lifts the evidence seizure but does not decide whether the SUV infringes JLR's intellectual property rights," the judge wrote. The court also barred JLR from taking further enforcement action under its original seizure authorization.
BYD had argued the seizure was an overreach that swept up unrelated research and development material. The court agreed the collection request was too broad and rejected JLR's separate bid for a surprise inspection of BYD's internal files.
The penalty and the costs
The €50,000 hourly penalty gives BYD real leverage if JLR drags its feet: each hour past the 24-hour window adds another €50,000 until the half-million-euro ceiling is reached. The ruling takes effect immediately, so JLR cannot wait out an appeal before complying.
The court also ordered BYD to pay €25,376.57 (about $28,200) in legal costs. That is a modest sum next to the potential hourly penalty, and it suggests the court saw the dispute as a procedural misstep by JLR rather than misconduct by BYD.
The design fight continues
None of this touches the central accusation. JLR still argues the Ti7 copies the Defender's design, and separate proceedings are underway in both Rotterdam and The Hague to settle that question. JLR's broader case claims BYD dismantled a Land Rover Defender to reverse-engineer its technology for use in the Ti7.
The procedural loss does not weaken that argument on its merits, but it does narrow the evidence JLR can lean on. With the seized files gone, the design case will rest on the vehicles themselves and whatever the separate proceedings produce.
When the infringement question itself will be resolved has not been announced. For now, the only fixed deadline is JLR's 24-hour window to destroy or return the documents.

