Key takeaways
No reason to limit access for authorised representative’s team
Normally, in main proceedings there is no reason to limit the party’s representatives who have access to confidential information to a certain number of team members or even to UPC representatives and their internal assistants.
To fullfill the requirement of R. 262A.6 RoP (number of persons having access shall not be greater than is neccessary), the number of representatives should not be “unlimited” or “indeterminable”. It must be clear who is obliged to maintain confidentiality and who can be held responsible and legally liable in the event of a breach of the confidentiality order.
The access is therefore granted to the representatives, who have the right to share the relevant information with their team working on the case. It is their responsibility to ensure that their team maintains the confidentiality of the information.
The other party must bring reasons against access by certain persons
In principle, it is for the party concerned to identify the persons to whom access is to be granted. Once it has done so and identified the natural persons to whom it wishes that access to the confidential information be granted, it is for the other party to state the reasons why, in its view, such access should not be granted in the particular case.
Division
LD Duesseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_140/2024
Type of proceedings
Infringement action
Parties
Claimant: 10x Genomics Inc.
Defendant: Curio Bioscience Inc.
Patent(s)
EP 2 697 391 B1
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 262A RoP
