Short Summary
This is a confidentiality order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 in proceedings between Ona Patents SL (Claimant) and Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (Defendants), with Ekahau Oy as Counter-defendant. The court dismissed the Defendants' request to limit the scope of the Claimant's confidentiality request, finding that the documents in question related to third parties bound by confidentiality clauses and internal business documents not fully disclosed to the public. The court also declined to permit disclosure of the confidential information to the District Court of Munich I in a parallel case between the same parties.
Detailed Summary
This Final Order was issued by Judge Dr. Thom acting as judge-rapporteur at the Düsseldorf Local Division on 9 September 2025, concerning European Patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The underlying main proceedings (UPC_CFI_100/2024 and UPC_CFI_411/2024) involve a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation between Ona Patents SL as Claimant, Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited as Defendants, and Ekahau Oy as Counter-defendant 2.
The specific subject of this order was Rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure regarding the protection of confidential information. The Claimant had submitted a brief dated 20 August 2025 along with Exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33, and sought confidentiality protection for certain information contained therein. The Defendants (Google) requested the court to reject the Claimant's confidentiality request insofar as it extended beyond considering confidential and limiting access to a specific section of Exhibit KAP 33 cited in paragraph 123 of the statement.
The court dismissed the Defendants' request. The court reasoned that most of the documents submitted as exhibits related exclusively to third parties not involved in these proceedings, and that confidentiality clauses had been agreed between those parties. The court noted that such confidentiality clauses may incorporate applicable law between parties to an agreement, and that the full content of the contracts had not yet been submitted in writing as part of the proceedings. Additionally, other exhibits included internal business documents that had not been fully disclosed to the public. The court observed that even the legal opinion referred to confidential agreements and provided a legal assessment of them. The court concluded that the Claimant did not request confidentiality for anything that the Defendants would not have requested themselves if they had been ordered to present further facts and evidence.
The court also declined to permit the disclosure of the confidential information to the District Court of Munich I in a pending parallel case for alleged patent infringement of EP 1 354 491 B1 between the same parties (case no. 7 O 3152/24). The court held that the mere allegation of almost identical arguments regarding standing to sue and the high relevance of documents in parallel proceedings did not justify waiving confidentiality per se.
The operative order restricted access to the unredacted version of the Claimant's brief dated 20 August 2025 and the unredacted versions of Exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33, on the part of the Defendants, to authorized representatives involved in the proceedings and their staff, as well as specifically named individuals (whose names were redacted in the public version). Confidential information was ordered to be treated as such and not used or disclosed outside of these court proceedings, with exceptions for information obtained on a non-confidential basis from sources not bound by confidentiality. The court further ordered that culpable breach of the order could result in penalty payments determined according to the circumstances of each case.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Google Commerce Limited & Google Ireland Limited vs Ona Patents SL (Confidentiality Order) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Netgear Inc., Netgear Deutschland GmbH, Netgear International LimitedvsHuawei Technologies Co. Ltd
This is an order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning Netgear's application for acceleration of appeal proceedings and shortening of time limits under Rules 225(e) and 9.3(b) of the Rules of Procedure. Netgear had appealed a decision of the Local Division Munich that allowed Huawei to extend its infringement claim to include a second European patent (EP 3678321). The Court of Appeal rejected Netgear's request for shortening the time limit for filing the response to the appeal, finding that granting the request would prejudice Huawei's right to adequate preparation time and would conflict with principles of proportionality, fairness, and due process.
Network System Technologies LLCvsTexas Instruments Incorporated, Texas Instruments Deutschland GmbH, Volkswagen AG, Audi AG
Network System Technologies LLC (NST) brought a patent infringement action before the Local Division Munich concerning EP 1 552 669 B1 against Texas Instruments, Texas Instruments Deutschland, Volkswagen, and Audi. The defendants filed preliminary objections under Rule 19 RoP and applications under Rule 361 RoP, challenging jurisdiction (alleging invalid opt-out withdrawal), NST's standing, the broad scope of allegedly infringing embodiments, and the Court's jurisdiction over UK-related damages. The Court dismissed the Rule 361 applications as manifestly unfounded and partially dismissed the Rule 19 preliminary objections, deferring the residual jurisdictional issues to the main proceeding.
N.J Diffusion SARLvsGisela Mayer GmbH
This is a procedural order from the Local Division of Paris of the Unified Patent Court in an infringement action concerning European Patent EP2404516. The claimant, N.J Diffusion SARL, sought an in-person case management conference to physically examine two wigs deposited with the registry and take detailed photographs of their connection zones. The judge-rapporteur declared the request admissible but rejected it on the merits, finding the requested evidentiary measure unnecessary since enlarged photographs of the wigs were already in the rejoinder brief, and ordered the case management conference to proceed online.
air up group GmbHvsGuangzhou Aiyun Yanwu Technology Co., Ltd.
This case before the Local Division Munich concerned the service of a decision by default in provisional measures proceedings regarding European Patent EP 3 655 341. The defendant, domiciled in China, could not be served through the Hague Service Convention as the Chinese authority failed to process service for over six months. The court held that publication of the decision by default on the Court's website, with notification to the defendant by email, constitutes good service under Rule 275.2 of the Rules of Procedure.
Insulet CorporationvsEoflow Co Ltd
The Milan Local Division of the Unified Patent Court dismissed Insulet Corporation's application for a cost decision against Eoflow Co Ltd, which had unsuccessfully attempted to intervene in provisional measures proceedings concerning patent EP4201327. The Court held that the rules on costs (Rules 150 et seq. RoP) require a prior existing decision on costs in principle, and since the order refusing Eoflow's intervention contained no such cost decision, the application was procedurally deficient.
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.