Executive Summary
In this UPC case concerning an infringement action by Huawei against MediaTek, the court issued a procedural order focused entirely on protecting trade secrets. The defendant successfully petitioned for strict confidentiality measures regarding sensitive information submitted in their defense pleadings. This ruling reinforces the robust protection of business secrets within the UPC framework, ensuring that proprietary knowledge remains shielded from public view and unauthorized access during litigation.
What the Court Held — Ratio Decidendi
The court analogously applied Rules 262.2 and 262A of the UPC Rules of Procedure to protect trade secrets (Geschäftsgeheimnisse) submitted by the defendant, finding that the interest in confidentiality outweighs public access. This established a mechanism for restricting information disclosure during infringement proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This decision partially_granted relief to the petitioner. If you are facing a similar patent dispute before Munich (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
NEC CorporationvsTCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd.; TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd.; TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addresses the complex issue of serving legal documents on defendants domiciled in China and Hong Kong during infringement proceedings. NEC Corporation sought alternative service methods, such as email or public notice, but the Court rejected these requests. The ruling reinforces that while the UPC has its own procedural rules, they must operate within the framework of international conventions (like the Hague Convention) and respect the national laws of the contracting states. This decision serves as a critical reminder to practitioners about the strict requirements for cross-border service in the UPC.
Amycel LLCvsPL
In a default judgment case concerning mushroom strains, the UPC confirmed infringement of EP 1 993 350 B2 held by Amycel LLC. The court specifically addressed patentability issues, ruling that the subject matter (a specific mushroom strain) is not excluded from protection under Art. 53(b) EPC. This decision reinforces the enforceability of plant-related patents within the UPC territory and confirms significant remedies, including permanent injunctions and interim damages.
Sun Patent TrustvsVivo Mobile Communication Co., Ltd.
This UPC Court of Appeal decision addressed an application for suspensive effect filed by Sun Patent Trust against a confidentiality order issued by the Court of First Instance. The dispute centered on restricting access to highly confidential information (HCI) within ongoing infringement proceedings involving Vivo Mobile Communication. The Court ultimately rejected the request, finding that even if HCI was disclosed, the appeal would not become devoid of purpose because it addresses both access and usage conditions for the sensitive data.
Van Loon Beheer Nederland B.V.vsInverquark Deutschland GmbH
In this UPC case concerning EP 3 653 275 B8, the court addressed a request for an additional expert report following an initial inspection and evidence preservation order. The Local Division of Düsseldorf denied the supplementary expert opinion, finding that the existing findings were sufficient and that the procedure did not necessitate further technical clarification at this stage. However, the court granted access to the unredacted version of the expert's detailed description, ensuring transparency for the claimant.
Canon Kabushiki KaishavsKatun Germany GmbH a.o., Katun (E.D.C.) B.V., Katun Corporation, General Plastic Industrial Co., Ltd.
In this procedural order, the UPC Local Division in Düsseldorf addressed a request from Canon Kabushiki Kaisha for simultaneous Japanese interpretation during oral proceedings. The Court ruled that allowing the Claimant to use an interpreter was appropriate to ensure equality of arms, given that some corporate representatives were not proficient in English. However, the Court denied the request for court-organized interpretation and held that the costs would not become part of the proceedings, emphasizing that such arrangements are generally not provided unless necessary or if the language is official.
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.