Key takeaways
Access to cost breakdown for adversary granted
In the context of an interpretation in conformity with European law taking into account Art. 9(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 58 UPCA, must be understood to mean that the circle of persons entitled to access to confidential information must include at least one natural person from each party. Only in this way, the fundamental right to be heard and the right to a fair trial can be adequately taken into account.
The decision on restriced access for the adverse party according to R. 262A RoP requires the balancing of the interests of the parties.
The interest in unrestricted access to information carries particular weight if there is a recognizably justified interest worthy of protection of the adverse party in taking a position on the information at issue.
Limited access to only the total amount of the costs would prevent the adverse party from an effective defence against the assertion of costs that are in fact not reasonable and proportionate.
It is an additional factor that nondisclosure could result in a wrong sovereign decision with negative economic consequences for the adverse party.
Access to cost breakdown for public denied
The public’s interest in learning about individually agreed attorney’s fees in patent disputes regularly recedes behind the parties’ interest in keeping such fees confidential.
Burden of proof on the proprietor of confidential information
The classification of information as confidential is an exception. Therefore, a need of the adverse party for a separate (legitimate) interest in accessing information is generally not required. Rather, the burden of presentation and proof for the confidentiality of information is on the party that requests that information be classified as confidential.
R 262A onfidentiality request may include R 262.2 confidentiality request
Requests for confidentiality towards an adverse party pursuant to R. 262A RoP may include as a “minus” a request for confidential treatment of the information at issue towards the public pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP.
Division
CD Paris
UPC number
UPC_CFI_367/2023
ACT_580198/2023
ORD_39244
Type of proceedings
Revocation action
Parties
CEAD B.V., CEAD USA B.V.
BEGO Medical GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 2 681 034
Jurisdictions
Place jurisdictions
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262A RoP, Rule 262.2 RoP, Art. 58 UPCA, Art. 69.1 UPCA, Art. 76.2 UPCA
