Home » UPC decisions » Central Division » Munich Central Division » CD Munich, 17 November 2023, order, UPC_CFI_80/2023

CD Munich, 17 November 2023, order, UPC_CFI_80/2023

4 min Reading time

Key takeaways

An application for the protection of confidential information (“Confidential Annex”) under Rule 262A was made by the Claimant concerning an exhibit submitted by the Claimant and relied upon in the context of a request to stay proceedings because of the pending outcome of opposition proceedings at the European Patent Office made by the Defendants.

Due to the Preliminary Order dated 2 November 2023, restricted access to the UPC representatives of the Defendants was given in line with the Hamburg Local Division in its final order (577763 in case ACT_463258/2023). Furthermore, the Claimant then requested that access to the Confidential Annex be restricted to a single person at each Defendant entity and the Defendants’ UPC representative. Moreover, the Claimant also requested the Court to keep confidential the information in the Confidential Annex from any third party accessing, or requesting to access, the case file on the CMS.

The Central Division Munich section generally stated that access to any document containing trade secrets or alleged trade secrets submitted by the parties may be restricted, in whole or in part, to a limited number of persons according to Article 9 (1) and (2) (sub a) of Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use, and disclosure.

The Court further decided that access is restricted to three named natural persons apart from the UPC representatives of the Defendants – two employees of Defendant 1 and one external Japanese patent attorney of Defendant 2. This is because access is necessary to comply with the Defendants´ procedural rights, namely to ensure compliance with the right of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and a fair trial.

Moreover, the Court granted the request of the Claimant according to Rule 262.2 RoP (which deals with public access as opposed to Rule 262A RoP which deals with the protection of confidential information vis-à-vis the parties to legal proceedings). However, the Claimant should have provided a redacted version due to Defendants’ comments in view of the last sentence of Rule 262.2 RoP so that the Court ordered the Claimant to upload such a redacted version within seven calendar days of the date of this order.

An application for the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A could use the Rule 9 RoP workflow (Powers of the Court) when the application could not be submitted using the dedicated workflow in the Case Management System (CMS) for technical reasons.


Munich Central Division

UPC number


Type of proceedings

Revocation action


Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine

Healios K.K

Osaka University





Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 262 RoP, Rule 262A RoP, Art. 58 UPCA

Was the article helpful?



Stay in the loop

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

* = Required field