Short Summary
This order concerns a dispute over confidentiality protection and access restrictions in proceedings relating to European Patent EP 2 479 680. The defendants (AYLO entities) had requested access restrictions under Rule 262A RoP regarding information about the functioning of the accused embodiments contained in their reply. The Rapporteur issued a confidentiality order on 03.07.2024 granting access to the plaintiffs' legal representatives and three named natural persons. The defendants sought review under Rule 333 RoP, arguing that the three named individuals should be excluded because they are responsible for strategic decisions in parallel US proceedings and could not disregard the confidential information once obtained.
Detailed Summary
This order was issued by the Local Chamber Mannheim in proceedings concerning European Patent EP 2 479 680. The plaintiffs are DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C., both based in Englewood, Colorado, USA. The defendants include AYLO Premium Ltd (Cyprus), AYLO Billing Limited (Ireland), AYLO Freesites Ltd (Cyprus), and three further defendants: AYLO Billing US Corp., Brockwell Group LLC, and Bridgemaze Group LLC. The presiding judge was Dr. Tochtermann, with legally qualified judges Böttcher and Dr. Schober. The proceedings were conducted in German.
The dispute centers on the scope of access restrictions under Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure. Defendants 1-3 (the AYLO entities) had filed a request on 13.05.2024 seeking access restrictions regarding information about the functioning of the accused embodiments contained in their reply to the complaint and in accompanying Annex BPV 5. The Rapporteur issued a final confidentiality protection order on 03.07.2024, which classified the relevant information as confidential but, while rejecting the defendants' broader request, granted access to the plaintiffs' legal representatives and their assistants without numerical limitation or individual naming, as well as three natural persons designated by the plaintiffs. Defendants 1-3 filed a review request on 09.07.2024 under Rule 333 RoP, seeking to exclude these three named individuals from access.
& Analysis: The defendants argued that the three natural persons designated by the plaintiffs should not be granted access to the confidential information because, according to the plaintiffs' own representations, these individuals are specifically tasked with making strategic decisions regarding parallel US litigation proceedings related to the present case. The defendants contended that once these individuals obtained knowledge of the confidential information regarding the functioning of the accused embodiments, they could not disregard or 'unsee' such information. The defendants further argued that without the present litigation, these three designated persons would have no knowledge of the confidential information and could not use it in other proceedings. The text of the order is cut off before the full reasoning and final ruling are provided.
Final Order & Ruling: The order was issued on 22 July 2024 as an Anordnung (order) by the panel. The full text of the ruling is not available as the provided judgment text is truncated before the conclusion of the court's analysis and final disposition.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Mannheim (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in AYLO PREMIUM LTD vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
AMBAFLEX INTERNATIONAL B.V.vs***
Ambaflex International B.V. filed a nullity action before the Central Division of the Unified Patent Court seeking full revocation of European patent EP 2743216 B1 with effect in CH/LI, DE, ES, FR, GB, IT, PL, and RO. The parties subsequently reached an amicable settlement, and Ambaflex withdrew its nullity claim. The defendant accepted the withdrawal, and the court recorded the withdrawal, declared the case closed, and noted the parties' agreement that each would bear its own costs.
Horl 1993 GmbHvsMagna-Tec e.K.
Horl 1993 GmbH, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 4 117 857 B1 concerning a roller sharpener (Rollschleifer), brought a patent infringement action against Magna-Tec e.K. before the Local Chamber Hamburg. The court addressed key legal questions regarding the burden of substantiation for infringement claims relating to non-UPCA contracting states and the conditions under which a claimant is entitled to publication of the judgment. The decision was rendered following an oral hearing on 19 March 2026.
Dolby International ABvsCPYou B.V. / Acer et al.
This procedural order concerns the rectification of an obvious error in a prior order dated 1 May 2026. The parties agreed that the Defendants' application under R. 190 erroneously referred to 'Acer' where 'Vectis' (the Intervener) was intended, as evidenced by the use of 'Dolby and/or Vectis' elsewhere in the application. The Court, applying R. 353 RoP, rectified the error by replacing 'Dolby and Acer' with 'Dolby and Vectis' on pages 3 and 7 of the earlier order.
Netgear Inc., Germany GmbH, International LimitedvsHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This case concerns a request for discretionary review before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court regarding the admissibility of an appeal against an order by a judge rapporteur. The judge rapporteur had refused to refer his earlier decision (that the Applicants' preliminary objection would be dealt with in the main proceedings) to the panel for review under Rule 333.1 RoP. The standing judge allowed the discretionary review request, permitting the applicants to appeal the 11 December 2023 order, and referred the case to the President of the Court of Appeal for assignment to a panel.
Nixu FL IP Protection LLCvsINFOBLOX INC. o.a.
The Claimant filed a patent infringement action against three Defendants concerning claim 2 of EP 2 005 696 B1, alleging infringement in Germany, France, Finland, and the United Kingdom. While jurisdiction over the two German-domiciled Defendants under Article 31 UPCA in conjunction with Article 4(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation was not contested, the US-domiciled Defendant filed a Preliminary Objection challenging the Court's international jurisdiction. The core dispute centers on whether the UPC can assert jurisdiction over the US Defendant via the anchor defendant theory under Article 8(1) Brussels-Ia-Regulation, particularly with respect to the UK portion of the European Patent, given that the UK is not a UPCA member state.
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.