Topics: confidentiality
-
Court of Appeal, June 10, 2026, Order of the Court of Appeal, UPC_CoA_61/2026
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…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 27, 2026, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_779/2024
Confidentiality concerns must be raised during main proceedings if the need for protection is reasonably foreseeable (R. 262A RoP).: Where it is reasonably foreseeable that court-ordered disclosure may require revelation of confidential information, the defendant must raise confidentiality concerns during main proceedings. Failing to do so without adequate justification will typically result in denial of…
2 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Düsseldorf, 11 May 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1034/2025 & UPC_CFI_931/2026
Confidentiality orders are not limited to trade secrets, they cover any information requiring confidentiality, balanced against the parties’ competing interests: The decisive factor is whether the information requires confidentiality, not whether it qualifies as a trade secret. The Court must weigh the right to be heard and fair trial rights of the party affected by…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, May 6, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_1536/2026
Ex parte inspection at trade fairs justified where concrete risk of evidence destruction exists (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192, 197 RoP): The Court ordered ex parte inspection of a machine exhibited at a trade fair. The Applicant credibly demonstrated that the Defendant could remove the machine or deactivate pre-programmed processes via software update, rendering evidence…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, May 4, 2026, Order on Public Access to Case Files in Evidence Preservation Proceedings, UPC_CFI_1167/2026
The nature of proceedings may justify restricting public access under Art. 45 UPCA, even though R. 262.1(b) RoP does not explicitly differentiate by proceeding type: Evidence preservation and inspection proceedings create a procedural and confidential playing field balancing fundamental rights of the parties. This playing field must be maintained even after proceedings end without proceedings…
5 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, April 30, 2026, dismissal of confidentiality order, UPC_CFI_351/2024, 595/2024
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…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1612/2025
Classification as confidential if parties agree on confidential nature of the information. : The Court acknowledges the confidential nature of specific information after the claimant did not object to the defendant’s corresponding assertion. A pre-existing broader NDA prevents a party from imposing a narrower confidentiality circle in UPC proceedings.: The Court determined that if confidential…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Brussels, April 14, 2026, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_1357/2025; UPC_CFI_629/2025
Evidence production applications (Art. 59 UPCA, R. 190 RoP) require four cumulative conditions: reasonably available evidence, specification and control, confidentiality protection, and proportionality.: The requesting party must have presented evidence “reasonably available” in support of its claims. This condition is assessed on a prima facie basis and is twofold, considering(a) whether the requesting party presented…
4 min Reading time→ -
CoA, March 18, 2026, Order concerning an appeal against an order denying a request under R. 262.2 RoP, UPC_CoA_930/2025
Information disclosed to the other party without a confidentiality restriction will generally lose protection as a trade secret or other confidential information: The Court of Appeal confirms that a request under R. 262.2 RoP does not in itself prevent the other party from using or disclosing information already communicated without restriction. Where information has been…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Munich, 24 February 2026, Order of the Court of First Instance, UPC_CFI_609/2025
Representation by attorney at law or patent attorney (Art. 48, 58 UPCA): A party can choose freely between being represented by an attorney at law, a patent attorney or a team of both. There is no obligation to consider the nature of the case. This is also reflected in the headnotes: 1) It follows from…
3 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January, 26, 2026, final order concerning an application for the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_631/2025, UPC_CoA_632/2025
Proportionality in the protection of confidential information: When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential informaiton and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interest of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties,…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 26, 2026, order regarding a request pusuant to R. 262.2 RoP, UPC_CoA_917/2025
Difference between R. 262A RoP request and R. 262.2 RoP request: According to case-law, only R. 262A RoP allows the Court to restrict the use of confidential information by the opposing party and its representatives. A request under R. 262.2 RoP that certain information of written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential does not automatically…
5 min Reading time→ -
CoA, January 26, 2026, Order concerning a confidentiality request under R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_755/2025, UPC_CoA_757/2025, UPC_CoA_791/2025, UPC_CoA_793/2025
Proportionality in the protection of confidential information: When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential information and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties,…
6 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, January 19, 2026, Order regarding confidentiality of FRAND negotiations, UPC_CFI_481/2025
General order was issued stipulating that submissions on details of FRAND negotiations between the parties, even if they are only introduced into the proceedings in future pleadings, are already protected under R. 262A RoP : The information to be protected is confidential information belonging to at least one of the parties, because it relates to…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, Order, December 19, 2025, UPC_CFI_1598_2025, UPC_CFI_1600_2025
No CMS Access, No Say on Confidentiality: The Düsseldorf Local Division clarified the consequences for a defendant who fails to engage with the UPC’s Case Management System (CMS) following an order to preserve evidence. The applicant obtained an ex parte order to preserve evidence, which was executed at the defendant’s booth at the MEDICA trade…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, October 14, 2025, appeal against an order re. penalty payments, UPC_CoA_699/2025
System of penalties under the Rules of Procedure, specifics of a penalty order (R. 354.3, R.354.4 RoP): Pursuant to R. 354.3 RoP an order or decision may include an order for the forfeiture of a penalty sum in case of (future) non-compliance with an order (hereinafter: a penalty order). Although this must be considered the…
12 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, September 9, 2025, confidentiality order, UPC_CFI_100/2024, UPC_CFI_411/2024
No disclosure of confidential information in parallel national proceedings: In response to a request for confidentiality, the respondents asked the Local Division Düsseldorf to permit the disclosure of confidential information in parallel proceedings between the same parties at the Regional Court of Munich I (case no. 7 O 3152/24). The information was related to standing…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.