Topics: confidentiality
-
LD Munich, October 2, 2024, Substantive Order, UPC_CFI_153/2024
Patent pool administrators have a direct legal interest in litigations concerning patents within their pools: The court, referencing Rule 313 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (RoP), affirmed that a patent pool administrator possesses a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of such a lawsuit. This interest stems from…
5 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, September 30, 2024, Ordner in relation to R. 220.3 RoP and deadlines in R29(d) RoP, UPC_CoA_543/2024
Deadlines when Confidential Information are included: This decision clarifies that the deadline for a Defendant’s reply (in German “Duplik”) under Rule 29(d) RoP, when confidential information is involved, begins upon filing the initial Plaintiff’s reply, even if redacted. The Court of Appeal, while acknowledging differing practices across Local Divisions, found no misinterpretation of the RoP…
4 min Reading time→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
LD Mannheim, September 3, 2024, order on protection of confidential information, UPC_CFI_219/2023
Submission in rejoinder, insofar as it concerns two third-party license agreements, will not be taken into account in the further proceedings: The submissions in the rejoinder, insofar as they concern two third-party license agreements that are subject of the requested further access restrictions, will not be taken into account in the further proceedings. The Defendants…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, August 30, 2024, order on protection of confidential information, UPC_CFI_99/2024
Information on the profit margin may be subject to confidentiality if it is not available from publicly accessible sources: The Claimant has not questioned the fact that information on the profit margin may constitute confidential information if it is not available from publicly accessible sources. Insofar as the Claimant instead refers to the fact that…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Vienna, August 12, 2024, Procedural order on publicity of pleadings and evidence, UPC_CFI_33/2024
Weighing of interests when deciding on a request for the provision of pleadings and evidence pursuant to R 262.1 (b) RoP: If a request for the provision of pleadings and evidence is made by a member of the public pursuant to R 262.1 (b) RoP, the interests of that member of the public to have…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Hamburg, August 9, 2024, Procedural order concerning confidentiality, UPC_CFI_278/2023
The existence of a trade secret does not have to be established to the court’s satisfaction, but it is sufficient if this is predominantly probable: The existence of a trade secret does not have to be established to the court’s satisfaction, but it is sufficient if this is predominantly probable, as shown by the wording…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesselorf, August 8, 2024, Procedural order concerning confidentiality, UPC_CFI_140/2024
No reason to limit access for authorised representative’s team: Normally, in main proceedings there is no reason to limit the party’s representatives who have access to confidential information to a certain number of team members or even to UPC representatives and their internal assistants. To fullfill the requirement of R. 262A.6 RoP (number of persons…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, July 30, 2024, Procedural order concerning confidentiality, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Intervener is party to the proceedings with corresponding option to request confidentiality: Unless ordered otherwise by the Court, the intervener shall be treated as a party in accordance with Rule 315.4 RoP. Just like a party, the intervener therefore has the option to file a confidentiality request concerning the information contained in the pleadings submitted…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, July 30, 2024, order on confidentiality, UPC_CFI_367/2023
Access to cost breakdown for adversary granted: In the context of an interpretation in conformity with European law taking into account Art. 9(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 58 UPCA, must be understood to mean that the circle of persons entitled to access to confidential information must include at least one natural person from each…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD Milan, July 23, 2024, order on application according R 262A RoP, UPC_CFI_240/2023
Restriction to “attorneys eyes only” possible under R 262A RoP, exceptional circumstances required: In the case of protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP, the number of persons authorised to have access may not be greater than is necessary to ensure compliance with the principle of a fair trial and the right of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, July 23, 2024, order on appeal, UPC_CoA_177/2024
Application for preservation of evidence or inspection of premises implies a request to disclose the report on the outcome: The legitimate purpose of the procedure for the preservation of evidence or the inspection of premises (Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192 et seq.) includes the use of the evidence to decide whether to initiate proceedings on…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, July 22, 2024, Order on a request for confidentiality, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Generally, a confidentiality club shall include at least one natural person from an intervening party: Since the intervener shall be treated as a party in accordance with R. 315.4 RoP (unless otherwise ordered by the Court), on request according to R. 262A a confidentiality club shall comprise at least one natural person from the intervener.…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Mannheim, July 3, 2024, Order re Protection of Confidential Information, UPC_CFI_471/2023
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…
3 min Reading time→ -
Court of Appeal, June 20, 2024, Order on application pursuant to R. 262A RoP, UPC_CoA_234/2024
An order by the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 262A RoP also applies to the appeal proceedings : A non-appealed order by the Court of First Instance pursuant to R. 262A RoP that restricts access to certain information or evidence to specific persons, unless otherwise stated in the order, continues to apply after…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, June 27, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_457/2023
Deadline Extensions due to R. 242A RoP applications in FRAND proceedings: If the Defendant deals extensively with license negotiations between itself and a patent pool in the context of the substantiation of the FRAND objection raised by it, the Claimant can only respond comprehensively to this argument if he can consult with employees of the…
2 min Reading time→ -
CD Paris, June 26, 2024, order, UPC_CFI_164/2024
Independence of a counsellor is measured with reference to the possible harm to the interests of the party : The fact that the representative of a party is also the inventor of the patent-in-suit, the original applicant of the application underlying the patent-in-suit and the managing director of the first assignee of the patent does…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, June 24, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_456/2023
If access to written pleadings is restricted to representatives only according to R. 262A RoP, this is regularly a reason for the extension of time limits: R. 9.3 (a) RoP authorizes the court to extend time limits. However, this option should only be used with caution and only in justified exceptional cases. Such an exceptional…
2 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.