Key takeaways
A party may make an application for a confidentiality order pursuant to R. 262A.1 RoP if it is seeking protection for information that it is required to disclose under the operative part of a court decision. However, the application must be made during the proceedings on the merits if it can be reasonably foreseen that confidentiality issues will arise.
A party may make an application for a confidentiality order pursuant to R. 262A.1 RoP, even if it is not seeking to protect confidential information contained in their pleadings, but seeking for protection of information that it is required to disclose under the operative part of a court decision. This already follows from R. 190.1 RoP (in case the production of evidence is ordered, the court may order also confidentiality in that the evidence be disclosed to certain named persons only and be subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure) and R. 191 RoP (order for communication of information + confidentiality). The same must apply in cases where the court orders the communication of information pursuant to Art. 67 UPCA (CoA, order of 29 January 2026, UPC_CoA_930/2025, para. 26 – EOFlow v. Insulet).
However, if the defendant can reasonably foresee that the orders and evidence requested by the claimant may require it to disclose confidential information, this should be raised by the defendant during the proceedings on the merits. Appropriate measures can then be taken to protect such confidential information in the order or decision where necessary. If a confidentiality request is filed thereafter, confidentiality issues generally do not stay the time period set for compliance with a penalty reinforced order (CoA, order of 14 October 2025, UPC_CoA_699/2025, para. 45 – Kodak v. Fujifilm). (mn. 16-17)
In the enforcement proceedings, it is no more possible to restrict as to how the information received based on the decision is used (e.g. not to disclose the information outside of the proceedings).
There is no implicit limitation on the use of information received as a result of the other party’s compliance with an order to communicate information pursuant to Art. 67 UPCA and R. 191 RoP (CoA, order of 14 October 2025, UPC_CoA_699/2025, para. 45 – Kodak v. Fujifilm). Therefore, imposing the limitation requested by the defendants would restrict the claimant’s right to information. This is a matter of substantive law that must be examined in the proceedings on the merits. During these proceedings, it can be determined whether there are grounds to include such a restriction on the use of the information in the operative part of the decision (cf. LD Düsseldorf, decision of 28 April 2026, UPC_CFI_559/2024, para. 268 – Quantificare v. Canfield). (mn. 22)
Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
UPC number
UPC_CFI_351/2024, UPC_CFI_595/2024
Type of proceedings
Application for confidentiality order (in the enforcement proceedings)
Parties
Claimant: Canon K.K.
Defendants: Katun Germany GmbH, Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
Patent(s)
EP 3 686 683
Body of legislation / Rules
R. 262A RoP
