Key takeaways
The court established a confidentiality club under Rule 262A RoP for documents preserved in the preservation of evidence containing confidential information.
Content 1
Access was granted to the applicant’s representatives, one external technical advisor (bound by professional confidentiality rules), and a designated individual from the applicant company (Rule 262A.6 RoP).
The Court did not follow the request to limit access for representatives referring to the order UPC_CFI_181/2024 (LD Düsseldorf) of July 15, 2024. A representative is free to involve members of his/her team, who are actively involved in the proceedings.
It denied the request to allow access for an unlimited number of unspecified external technical advisors and limited access to one technical advisor (which was deemed sufficiend for the technical complexity of this specific case). It required that this external technical advisor be named before access (to assess responsibility for potential breaches of confidentiality obligations).
Baseline under R. 262A.6 RoP is access of at least one natural person but exceptions are possible (yet not granted in this case).
The Court did not categorically rule out the complete exclusion of a party’s natural person, but denied it for the case at hand where the exclusion was requested on the sole grounds that the order for the preservation of evidence may be revoked.
Division
LD Milan
UPC number
UPC_CFI_342/2025
Type of proceedings
Protection of evidence
Parties
3V Sigma s.p.a. (Appellant/Plaintiff) vs. ACEF s.r.l. (formerly ACEF s.p.a.) and AGA s.r.l. (Resistants/Defendants)
Patent(s)
EP 3275872; EP 3275426
Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262A RoP; Art. 58 UPCA; R. 192 RoP; Art. 60.5 UPCA
