Short Summary
The Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court rejected the defendant's request for protective orders regarding confidential information in a patent infringement case concerning EP 1 748 830 B1. The defendant, Wessper Sp. z o.o., sought to classify information it was ordered to disclose under a prior infringement decision as confidential and to restrict access. The court held that while R. 262A RoP can apply analogously to such post-judgment disclosure, the defendant failed to justify why it did not raise confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings when it could reasonably have foreseen the disclosure obligation.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns case UPC_CFI_779/2024 before the Local Chamber Düsseldorf (Spruchkörper 1), presided over by Presiding Judge Thomas, issued on May 27, 2026. The plaintiff, Brita SE (Taunusstein, Germany), had sued the defendant, Wessper Sp. z o.o. (Rzezawa, Poland), for infringement of European Patent EP 1 748 830 B1 relating to filter cartridges for liquid filtration devices.
On April 16, 2026, the Local Chamber Düsseldorf issued a decision finding indirect infringement of the patent by the defendant's filter cartridges. The court ordered Wessper to provide Brita with detailed information regarding the origin, distribution channels, quantities, prices, and identities of third parties involved in the manufacture and distribution of the infringing products, covering the period from December 10, 2019 to April 27, 2025, for sales into Austria, Belgium, Germany, France, Italy, and Lithuania. Wessper was also required to provide supporting documentation including invoices, delivery notes, advertising records, and cost documentation.
On May 18, 2026, Wessper filed a request seeking (1) classification of the information to be disclosed as confidential under R. 262A RoP applied analogously, with access restricted to its litigation representatives and a maximum of three named internal employees, and (2) under R. 262.2 RoP, redaction of any such information referenced in future pleadings, evidence, or decisions. Brita opposed the requests, seeking dismissal and postponement of the decision on the second request.
The court rejected both requests. While acknowledging that R. 262A RoP can apply analogously to information disclosed pursuant to a court order (citing UPC_CoA_930/2025, EOFLOW v. Insulet), the court emphasized that a defendant who can reasonably foresee that disclosure obligations may require revealing confidential information should raise confidentiality concerns during the main proceedings, so that appropriate protective measures can be incorporated into the decision (citing UPC_CoA_699/2025, Kodak v. Fujifilm). Although subsequent confidentiality requests are not categorically excluded, the party seeking such protection must provide comprehensible reasons for not raising the issue earlier.
The court found that Wessper failed to provide such justification. Two appellate orders cited by Wessper (dated January 29, 2026 and March 18, 2026) already existed at the time of the oral hearing in the main proceedings, giving Wessper the opportunity to raise confidentiality concerns at that stage. Wessper did not claim that the need for confidentiality only became apparent afterwards. Regarding the R. 262.2 RoP request, the court noted that since the information and documents provided by Wessper out of court were not currently part of the court file, there was no basis for the requested order, and a purely hypothetical protective order could not be granted.
The court therefore rejected Wessper's requests for protective orders dated May 18, 2026 in their entirety.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Brita SE vs Wessper Sp. z o.o. (UPC_CFI_779/2024) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbHvsXSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.
This is a procedural order from the Local Division Munich concerning European Patent EP 3 742 231. The parties jointly requested a stay of the infringement and revocation proceedings, as well as the application to amend the patent, to facilitate pending settlement negotiations without the pressure of ongoing litigation. The court granted the stay pursuant to Rule 295(d) RoP until three months after the next oral proceedings of the Board of Appeal in the parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings (T0187/24.-3.4.03), and cancelled the scheduled oral hearing of 7 October 2025.
Gowling WLGvsMerz Therapeutics GmbH, Merz Pharmaceuticals LLC, Merz Pharma France, Viatris Santé
Gowling WLG, a law firm representing clients before the Unified Patent Court, requested access to the case file of proceedings between Merz and Viatris (UPC_CFI_697/2025) concerning EP2377536 and its SPC. The Paris Local Division granted limited access, restricting disclosure to documents and submissions specifically relating to the 'unreasonable delay' point of law under Rule 211.4 RoP, which was the sole issue decided in the final order of 21 November 2025.
Valéo Systèmes d'EssuyagesvsRobert Bosch GmbH and Others
This is a procedural order from the Central Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court concerning a preliminary objection on jurisdiction and language of proceedings. The court held that the Central Division of Paris lacked jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement action filed by Valeo against multiple Robert Bosch entities, and ordered the case transferred to the Local Division of Düsseldorf with English as the language of proceedings.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsXiaomi Technology Germany GmbH & Others
This is an order from the Local Chamber Mannheim concerning EP 2 568 724, a standard-essential patent (SEP). Panasonic Holdings Corporation, the plaintiff, sought a court order directing itself to produce two specific license agreements, as it was prevented from voluntarily submitting them due to confidentiality clauses. The court ordered the production of both license agreements, allowing redactions of passages not relied upon by Panasonic in its factual allegations and legal arguments, while rejecting further requests.
Valeo ElectrificationvsMagna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o., and Magna International France, SARL
Valeo Electrification obtained a preliminary injunction from the Düsseldorf Local Division against Magna entities for alleged infringement of EP 3 320 602. Magna appealed the injunction, but before the appeal was heard, Valeo applied to withdraw the action with Magna's consent. The Court of Appeal permitted the withdrawal and declared the proceedings closed, with no cost decision needed.
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.