Steven Kitchen
3 IP cases indexed. Covers patent matters.
Cases Presided Over
3 cases indexed | Page 1 of 1
Insulet Corporation v.EOFLOW Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a dispute over the confidentiality of business information disclosed during infringement proceedings. EOFlow sought to classify internal data, such as turnover numbers and pricing, as confidential under R. 262.2 RoP. The court ruled against EOFlow, emphasizing that mere disclosure in litigation does not automatically grant trade secret protection if specific protective measures are absent. This reinforces the strict requirements for maintaining confidentiality within UPC proceedings.
Insulet Corporation v.EOFlow Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses a request for confidentiality concerning information exchanged during infringement litigation. The court ruled that once a party provides information without restriction under a court order, the recipient loses the basis to restrict its use. This clarifies the scope of confidentiality protections in the UPC, emphasizing that specific requests (R. 262A RoP) are needed when disclosure is mandated by the court.
Grundfos Holding A/S v.Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump Co., Ltd
This UPC appellate decision clarifies the strict application of Article 69(4) EPC regarding cost security. The court ruled that in appeal proceedings, only the appellant is considered the applicant for costs purposes. Consequently, Grundfos (the appellee/claimant in this specific context) was permitted to request security against Hefei (the appellant/respondent). This ruling reinforces the principle that cost security measures are designed to protect the party initiating the legal action from potential non-payment.
Facing a similar IP matter?
Arctic Invent is a specialist IP firm with deep litigation expertise across India, EU, US, and UK. Our team uses data-driven strategy to build stronger cases.