Home » UPC decisions » Luxembourg Court of Appeal » Court of Appeal, June 10, 2026, Order of the Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_61/2026

Court of Appeal, June 10, 2026, Order of the Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_61/2026

Philipp Bovenkamp

3 min Reading time

Table of Contents

  1. Key takeaways
  2. Division
  3. UPC number
  4. Type of proceedings
  5. Parties
  6. Patent(s)
  7. Jurisdictions
  8. Body of legislation / Rules

Download decision(s) (PDF)

Key takeaways

.aagb__accordion_container.no-pro-plan .aagb__accordion_body { padding: 10px !important; }

Market data from providers requiring confidentiality qualifies as confidential information under R. 262.2, R. 262A.1 RoP and Art. 58 UPCA, extending beyond trade secrets per Art. 39(2) TRIPS

✓

The Court confirmed that R. 262 and R. 262A RoP protect not only trade secrets within the meaning of Art. 39(2) TRIPS Agreement but also “other confidential information” pursuant to Art. 58 UPCA. Commercial market data sourced from data providers who require users to maintain confidentiality falls within this broader category.

jQuery(document).ready(function($) { var text_max = parseInt(“1”); // Parse contentCount as an integer $(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p”).hide(); $(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p”).slice(0, text_max).show(); $(“.expand .aagb_button_toggle”).click(function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p:hidden”).slice(0, text_max).fadeIn(“slow”); if ($(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p:hidden”).length === 0) { $(“.aagb_button_toggle”).fadeOut(“slow”); $(“.aagb_overlay”).fadeOut(“slow”); } }); }); .aagb__accordion_container.no-pro-plan .aagb__accordion_body { padding: 10px !important; }

Confidentiality club size must be proportionate under R. 262A.6 RoP, considering each person’s role, relevance of data, and trustworthiness

✓

The Court permitted the appellant access for three natural persons — two from legal/IP departments and one product manager — reasoning that since the market data related to the appellant’s own products, a commercial representative was best placed to verify its accuracy. The data being classified as not “highly confidential” further supported broader access.

The Court balanced the parties’ access rights with reference to Art. 42(2) UPCA (right to a fair trial), noting that four representatives of the respondents had been granted access to the appellant’s confidential data in a prior order in the same proceedings.

jQuery(document).ready(function($) { var text_max = parseInt(“1”); // Parse contentCount as an integer $(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p”).hide(); $(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p”).slice(0, text_max).show(); $(“.expand .aagb_button_toggle”).click(function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p:hidden”).slice(0, text_max).fadeIn(“slow”); if ($(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p:hidden”).length === 0) { $(“.aagb_button_toggle”).fadeOut(“slow”); $(“.aagb_overlay”).fadeOut(“slow”); } }); }); .aagb__accordion_container.no-pro-plan .aagb__accordion_body { padding: 10px !important; }

Strict use restrictions imposed on confidential information; culpable breach may incur a penalty

✓

The appellant was ordered to take appropriate measures to safeguard confidentiality. An exception to the use restriction applies only where the receiving party independently obtained the same information from a source not bound by confidentiality obligations to the respondents or their affiliated companies.

jQuery(document).ready(function($) { var text_max = parseInt(“1”); // Parse contentCount as an integer $(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p”).hide(); $(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p”).slice(0, text_max).show(); $(“.expand .aagb_button_toggle”).click(function(e) { e.preventDefault(); $(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p:hidden”).slice(0, text_max).fadeIn(“slow”); if ($(“.expand .aagb__accordion_component p:hidden”).length === 0) { $(“.aagb_button_toggle”).fadeOut(“slow”); $(“.aagb_overlay”).fadeOut(“slow”); } }); });

Division

Court of Appeal

UPC number

UPC_CoA_61/2026

Type of proceedings

Appeal proceedings (provisional measures) — interlocutory order on confidentiality

Parties

Appellant: SharkNinja Operating LLC.

Respondents:

  • Groupe SEB France,
  • S.A.S SEB,
  • SEB International Service (SIS),
  • Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH

Patent(s)

EP 3 689 198

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

R. 262 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 222 RoP, Art. 42 UPCA, Art. 58 UPCA, Art. 39 TRIPS Agreement

2026-06-10 order confidentiality SEB request 10 June 2026 signed_AnonymizedDownload

Was the article helpful?

Categories

Tags

More exciting articles on similar topics

Content not to be missed

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

* = Required field