Topics: R. 262A RoP
-
CoA, August 21, 2024, Order on a request for a discretionary review pursuant to R. 220.3 RoP, UPC_CoA_469/2024
The exclusion of a specific natural person from the confidentiality club in the context of a R. 262.A order requires concrete reasons: The abstract risk that an in-house counsel could breach the confidentiality obligation due to conflicts of interest if the in-house counsel is included in the group of persons entitled to access confidential information…
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→ -
Contact us personally!
Tips and advice directly from our Unitary Patents professionals.
-
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→ -
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→ -
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→ -
LD Mannheim, 13 June 2024, Order of the Court of first instance, UPC_CFI_219/2023
Extension of time limit (only) for response to redacted FRAND submission: Claimant filed its reply brief with heavy redactions re. the FRAND part. Hence, upon Defendant’s request the deadline for filing its rejoinder brief was extended as it relates to these redactions. However, as the parts re. infringement and validity of the patent were not…
2 min Reading time→ -
LD Paris, March 26, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_397/2023
Waiver of Rule 262A RoP: Even though Rule 262A RoP provides that the confidentiality club shall include at least one natural person from each party, the Court considers that it is possible for the parties to exclude access by a natural person by mutual agreement, provided that the principle of a fair trial is not…
1 min Reading time→ -
LD Duesseldorf, March 27, 2024, Procedural Order, UPC_CFI_355/2023
Protection of confidential information requires balancing of interests: When deciding an application to grant protection for the allegedly confidential information, the court has to weigh the right of a party to have unlimited access to the documents contained in the file, which guarantees its fundamental right to be heard, against the interest of the opposing…
4 min Reading time→ -
LD The Hague, 4 March 2024, Order on confidentiality regarding financial information, UPC_CFI_239/2023
Limitation to “attorneys eyes only” possible under R. 262A RoP on protection of confidential information: Claimants applied for a confidentiality order (R. 262A RoP) regarding financial information which did not relate to the main action but to Defendant’s request for security for costs (R. 158 RoP). The LD The Hague decided that access to confidential…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Düsseldorf, February 23, 2024, secrecy protection order, UPC_CFI_463/2023
The requirement to be heard prior to issuing a secrecy protection order according to R. 262A RoP applies only to the final secrecy order and access restriction: In the interest of effective secrecy protection, access can be further restricted until a final order is issued, namely to the representative of the plaintiff In consideration of…
3 min Reading time→ -
LD Dusseldorf, February 16, 2024, procedural order, UPC_CFI_463/2023
A party has to substantiate why specific persons should receive access to confidential information according to R. 262A RoP: According to R. 262A.6 RoP, the number of persons receiving access to confidential information of the other party shall be no greater than necessary. This does not necessarily include the entire team of lawyers and other…
1 min Reading time→
Stay in the loop
Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.