Key takeaways
An “unredacted document” under R. 262A.3 RoP need not be the complete original file. An excerpt reproducing the protected information can suffice.
The decisive criterion is whether the submitted document reveals the specific information or evidence for which restriction is sought under R. 262A.1 RoP, not whether it is technically unprocessed or complete.
R. 262A.3 RoP grants the restricted party no right to inspect the entire source document from which a protected excerpt was drawn.
The provision only requires disclosure of the concrete information or evidence to be protected, so that the restricted party can submit an informed statement under R. 262A.4 RoP; broader context is generally not required.
R. 262A.3 RoP is satisfied once the restricted party received both the redacted and unredacted versions of the introduced excerpt, enabling an informed statement under R. 262A.4 RoP.
The procedural requirements are met when the claimant’s legal representatives have access to both versions of the introduced excerpt, enabling them to comment on the confidentiality of that specific information.
The equality-of-arms principle does not require disclosure of an entire underlying document merely because the opposing party may know more of its content.
What matters is which information was actually introduced into the proceedings and relied upon as the basis for submissions, not what a party subjectively knows beyond that.
Division
Local Division Munich
UPC number
UPC_CFI_515/2026, UPC_CFI_1797/2026
Type of proceedings
Review of a confidentiality order (Application under R. 333.1 RoP) in main infringement proceedings with a revocation counterclaim
Parties
Claimant and Counter-Defendant: CA, Inc.
Defendants and Counter-Claimants: Deutsche Telekom AG, Telekom Deutschland GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 1 955 151
Jurisdictions
UPC
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262A.1 RoP
Rule 262A.3 RoP
Rule 262A.4 RoP
Rule 333.1 RoP
Rule 333.3 RoP
Rule 220.3 RoP
Rule 190 RoP
