Key takeaways
Access to unredacted documents is restricted to a limited group
Access to the unredacted version of the responses to the complaint is restricted on the plaintiffs’ side to the following persons:
a) the plaintiffs’ legal representatives and their internal support staff,
- There is no reason to restrict access on the part of the plaintiffs’ authorised representatives to a certain number or even to named EPG representatives and their named internal assistants.
b) external experts upon request,
- If authorised representatives wish to use external assistants with regard to confidential information, they must name them in advance so that a court decision can be made on this.
c) three employees on the plaintiffs’ side.
- Access for three natural persons is generally not objectionable in terms of numbers in case of complex technical matter.
The court denied the request to extend access to representatives in a parallel case
The plaintiffs’ interest alone in ensuring that their representatives in the present proceedings and the parallel proceedings before another court to exchange information extensively for effective and coordinated litigation does not justify making the confidential information available to the plaintiffs’ representatives for the parallel proceedings.
This would undermine the legitimate expectation of effective protection of confidentiality in the proceedings conducted before the Unified Patent Court on the basis of the UPC’s Rules of Procedure.
Division
LD Mannheim
UPC number
UPC_CFI_471/2023
Type of proceedings
Application RoP262A (Protection of Confidential Information)
Parties
AYLO FREESITES LTD, AYLO Billing Limited , AYLO PREMIUM LTD
v.
DISH Technologies L.L.C., Sling TV L.L.C.
Patent(s)
EP 2 479 680
Place jurisdictions
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262A RoP
