Short Summary
Procedural order concerning the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court. The Defendants requested that certain internal information contained in their Rejoinder be treated as strictly confidential, and the Local Division Munich granted the request, restricting access to the Claimant's named representatives and three named employees, with provisions for confidentiality obligations and penalty payments for breaches.
Detailed Summary
This Procedural Order was issued by the Presiding Judge Ulrike Voß of the Local Division Munich of the Unified Patent Court on 9 August 2024, in proceedings between Claimant Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. and Defendants Dexcom Inc., Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, and Dexcom International Limited, concerning European patent EP 4 087 195 (Case No. UPC_CFI_402/2023).
By written submission dated 26 June 2024, the Defendants filed an application pursuant to Rule 262A RoP requesting that internal information contained in their Rejoinder of 26 June 2024 (highlighted in gray) be classified as strictly confidential. They requested that the Claimant be permitted to access this information only through its representatives in the proceedings and internally through a maximum of three named reliable persons with a legitimate interest. They further requested that the Court be empowered to impose a recurring penalty payment of up to EUR 250,000.00 for any non-compliance.
The judge-rapporteur invited the Claimant to comment on the request by preliminary order of 28 June 2024. In its submission of 7 August 2024, the Claimant named three persons for internal access but otherwise did not wish to comment on the Defendants' request.
The Court found that the formal requirements of Rule 262A.2 and .3 RoP were complied with, and that the Claimant had been heard as required by Rule 262A.4 RoP. The Court noted that the Claimant had not disputed that the information classified as confidential constituted trade secrets or confidential information, and therefore the information was deemed worthy of protection.
Regarding the group of authorised persons, the Court referenced prior decisions and held that while there is normally no reason to limit the number of representatives, Rule 262A.6 RoP requires that the number of persons with access shall not be greater than necessary to ensure effective remedy and fair trial. The Court emphasized that the number of representatives should not be 'unlimited' or 'indeterminable,' as effective protection requires clear accountability. The Court granted access to the Claimant's named representatives—Dr. Dietrich Kamlah, Dr. Christian Lederer, Dr. Gisbert Hohagen (attorneys-at-law), and Dr. Alexander Esslinger (European patent attorney)—along with their teams actively involved in the proceedings, and the three employees named by the Claimant.
The Court ordered that the unredacted version of the Defendants' Rejoinder be classified as confidential, with access restricted to the named representatives, their teams, and the three named employees. The information must not be used or disclosed outside the proceedings, and the obligation continues after termination of the proceedings. The Court reserved the right to impose a penalty payment of up to EUR 250,000.00 for each culpable breach. The named representatives bear responsibility for ensuring their team members maintain confidentiality, and would be liable for any breaches by their team members.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. vs Dexcom Deutschland GmbH, Dexcom International Limited , Dexcom Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International Limited, Netgear Inc.vsRespondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Netgear group of companies to withdraw their action for a declaration of non-infringement against Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd regarding European Patent Nos. 3 678 321 and EP 3 611 989. The defendant had already consented to the withdrawal in parallel proceedings. The court granted the withdrawal, terminated the proceedings, set the dispute value at €1 million, and ordered reimbursement of 40% of the court fees paid, with each party bearing their own costs.
IMI Hydronics Engineering Deutschland GmbHvsBelparts Group N.V
This procedural order concerns a revocation action (UPC_CFI_104/2025) and a counterclaim for infringement (UPC_CFI_364/2025) related to European Patent EP3812870, owned by Belparts Group N.V. The claimant IMI Hydronic Engineering Deutschland GmbH initiated the revocation action before the Central Division Paris, while Belparts lodged a counterclaim for infringement. The order addresses procedural matters including the connection/joinder of proceedings and the referral of the counterclaim for infringement to the Local Division Munich, where related proceedings between the parties are already pending.
SILIMED Indústria de Implantes LtdavsPolytech Health&Aesthetics GmbH
This decision by the President of the Court of Appeal concerns an application by SILIMED Indústria de Implantes Ltda to remove an opt-out from the exclusive competence of the Unified Patent Court that had been filed by Polytech Health & Aesthetics GmbH in respect of European patent EP 2 581 193. SILIMED argued that Polytech was never entitled to the patent, as confirmed by a final German court decision ordering transfer of all national parts to SILIMED. The Registrar had rejected the application for removal on 10 April 2026, and SILIMED sought review of that decision. The decision sets out the legal framework under Rules 5A and 8.5 of the Rules of Procedure governing applications to remove unauthorised opt-outs.
Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd.vsRespondent
This procedural order concerns an application by the Claimant, Wonderland Nurserygoods Co., Ltd., for leave to change its claim under R. 263 RoP in an infringement action regarding European patent EP 1 905 615, which relates to swivel locking devices for stroller wheels. The Claimant sought to extend its equivalence argument from features 1.4 and 1.6 to also cover features 1.9 and 1.10, and to make corrections to main request II and add auxiliary request II.a. The Düsseldorf Local Division denied the application for leave to change the claim.
GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SAvsModerna et al.
This procedural order of the Court of First Instance addresses several applications by the parties in patent infringement proceedings brought by GlaxoSmithKline Biologicals SA against multiple Moderna entities concerning European patents EP4066856 and EP4226941. The order primarily addresses GSK's application under Rule 263 RoP to amend its claim in infringement action UPC_CFI_619/2025 to include Moderna's new product mNEXSPIKE within the definition of 'Spikevax Infringing Products'. Moderna opposes the amendment, arguing it could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage given the FDA's prior approval of mNEXSPIKE in the United States.
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.