Executive Summary
In a procedural ruling concerning confidentiality, the UPC Court addressed the protection of sensitive business information shared between 10x Genomics and Vizgen. The court confirmed that specific documents contained highly confidential trade secrets related to their licensing agreement. It issued an order strictly limiting access to these materials only to the respective outside legal counsel, reinforcing the protective measures established in parallel US litigation.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The UPC Court ruled that the content of document BP 34 constituted confidential business information and was entitled to strict secrecy under Article 58 EPGÜ. Access was limited exclusively to the legal representatives (outside attorneys), preventing broader internal or third-party access, thereby upholding the protective measures agreed upon in parallel US litigation.
Practitioner Note
This decision granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Hamburg (DE) Local Division, this precedent supports interim or final relief where the facts are comparable. The ratio regarding the applied tests is particularly relevant for strategy.
Related Cases
VALEO SYSTEMES D’ESSUYAGEvsROBERT BOSCH DOO, ROBERT BOSCH FRANCE S.A.S., ROBERT BOSCH GmbH, ROBERT BOSCH S.A., ROBERT BOSCH PRODUKTIE S.A., BOSCH AUTOMOTIVE PRODUCTS (CHANGSHA) CO., LTD.
This UPC decision addressed preliminary objections regarding the internal jurisdiction of the Paris Local Division in a complex infringement case involving multiple Bosch entities. The Court clarified that for Article 33(1)(b) AJUB to apply, the commercial link must exist among all defendants, not necessarily individually with the anchoring defendant. Crucially, 'same infringement' only requires violation of the same patent, not identical products. While rejecting the request to dismiss the case, the panel granted permission for an appeal, signaling a significant legal development on jurisdictional scope.
10x Genomics, Inc.vsNanoString Technologies Inc.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed a request to suspend infringement proceedings due to the insolvency filing (Chapter 11) of one of the defendants. The court rejected the suspension request, establishing a key principle that procedural efficiency and fairness outweigh automatic suspension when the bankruptcy occurs after the oral hearing and the case is ready for judgment. This ruling provides clarity on how UPC procedures interact with foreign insolvency laws.
Hurom Co., LtdvsNUC Electronics Europe GmbH, NUC Electronics Co., Ltd, Warmcook
In this UPC decision, the Paris Local Division addressed complex issues regarding patent amendments and infringement claims. Although the court allowed Hurom Co., Ltd to unconditionally amend its patent (EP3155936), it ultimately found that the Claimant failed to provide sufficient factual evidence of infringement in Poland. Consequently, all infringement claims were dismissed, setting a high bar for claimants seeking remedies outside the core UPC territory.
Occlutech GmbHvsLepu Medical (Europe) Cooperatief U.A. a.o.
Occlutech GmbH sought provisional measures against Lepu Medical for the imminent infringement of its patent covering braided occlusion devices. The court's final order emphasized that CE-mark approval is a mandatory prerequisite for legal market entry in the EU. This ruling highlights the critical role of regulatory compliance (specifically MDR) when assessing potential infringement and market readiness within UPC proceedings.
Dainese S.p.A.vsAlpinestars S.p.A., Alpinestars Research S.p.A., Motocard Bike S.l.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision concerns a procedural request for discretionary review filed by the defendants (Alpinestars) against an order from the Local Division. The core issue was whether the appeal remained necessary after the Local Division subsequently amended its original ruling to grant leave to appeal. The Court ruled that since the first instance proceedings evolved and rendered the appeal obsolete, the request could be withdrawn. This case highlights the dynamic nature of UPC litigation and how procedural developments can impact appellate remedies.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.