Short Summary
This is a corrigendum order issued by the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 10 September 2025, correcting a prior confidentiality order of 9 September 2025. The order classifies certain contract documents and internal company information related to the patent transfer chain, submitted by the Claimant Ona Patents SL in its brief dated 20 August 2025, as confidential. Access to the unredacted versions of the brief and exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33 is restricted to authorized representatives and specified individuals on the Defendants' side.
Detailed Summary
This Final Order was issued by Judge Dr Thom acting as judge-rapporteur at the Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court on 10 September 2025, in proceedings UPC_CFI_100/2024 and UPC_CFI_411/2024. The main proceedings concern a patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation regarding European patent EP 2 263 098 B1. The Claimant is Ona Patents SL (Barcelona, Spain), the Counter-defendant 2 is Ekahau Oy (Helsinki, Finland), and the Defendants are Google Ireland Limited and Google Commerce Limited (both Dublin, Republic of Ireland).
The subject of the proceedings is the protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP, specifically an addition corrigendum to a prior confidentiality order. The court noted that for clarity, its order of 9 September 2025 should include an explicit statement about the confidentiality of information provided by the Claimant in its application dated 20 August 2025. Accordingly, the confidentiality order of 9 September was corrected and reissued.
Under the corrected order, the following information was classified as confidential within the meaning of Art. 58 UPCA and R.262.2 RoP: the contract documents and internal company information between the companies involved in the patent transfer chain, specifically the statements highlighted in grey and exhibits marked 'strictly confidential' in the Claimant's brief dated 20 August 2025.
Access to the unredacted version of the Claimant's brief dated 20 August 2025 and the unredacted version of Exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33 was restricted, on the part of the Defendants, to (1) the authorised representatives involved in these proceedings on their side and their staff (including experts and their team members), and (2) specific named individuals whose identities were redacted in the public order.
The confidential information must be treated as such by the Defendants' representatives, their staff, and the named individuals. It shall not be used or disclosed outside of these court proceedings, except to the extent that it has verifiably come to the knowledge of the receiving party outside of these proceedings, provided that the receiving party has obtained it on a non-confidential basis from a source other than the Claimant or its affiliates, and provided that such source is not bound by a confidentiality agreement or other obligation of secrecy with the Claimant or its affiliates. The court further noted that in the event of a culpable breach of this order, it may impose a penalty payment for each breach, to be determined having regard 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 Ona Patents SL vs Google Ireland Limited a.o. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Brita SEvsAQUASHIELD DACH GmbH, AQUASHIELD EUROPE s.r.o., Gasmarine BV Srl, MGR26 Société à responsabilité limitée
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des einheitlichen Patentgerichts verkündet am 22. August 2025 betreffend EP 2 387 547 B1 LEITSÄTZE: 1. Zweckangaben in einem Vorrichtungsanspruch definieren eine Vorrichtung regelmäßig dahingehend, dass sie geeignet sein muss, für die
Alpinestars S.p.A.vsDainese S.p.A.
1. The UPC “shall be deemed to be a court of a Member State” pursuant the Article 71a of the Regulation (EU) n. 1215/2012 (recast) as amended by Regulation (EU) 542/2014. Its interpretation provided for by the Court of Justice of the European Union apply to the UPC as it were a national court. 2. In light of Court of Justice decision in case C-339/2022, 25 February 2025, UPC Milan Local Division has universal jurisdiction to adjudicate on infringement issues related to European patents ove
CeraCon GmbHvsSunstar Engineering Inc.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court denied CeraCon GmbH's request for discretionary review of an order refusing leave to amend its counterclaim for revocation of EP 4 108 413. CeraCon sought to introduce a new novelty attack based on EP'480, but the Court of Appeal found that CeraCon failed to demonstrate that the Court of First Instance was manifestly wrong in concluding that the amendment could have been made with reasonable diligence at an earlier stage under Rule 263.2(a) RoP.
PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KGvsRespondent
1 Entscheidung des Gerichts erster Instanz des Einheitlichen Patentgerichts erlassen am 05.06.2025 KLÄGERIN PHOENIX CONTACT GmbH & Co. KG, Flachsmarktstraße 8-28, 32825 Blomberg, Deutschland, vertreten durch: Rechtsanwalt Hannes Jacobsen, CBH Rechtsanwälte, Ismaninger Stra
ZTE CorporationvsSamsung Electronics Italia S.p.A, Samsung Electronics France, Samsung Electronics GmbH, Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., Samsung Electronics Benelux B.V., Samsung Electronics Romania S.R.L.
This order from the Mannheim Local Division of the Unified Patent Court, issued on 24 July 2025, concerns the value in dispute in a patent infringement action with a FRAND counterclaim relating to European patent EP 3 905 730. The court confirmed its earlier order of 20 June 2025, holding that a FRAND counterclaim is not merely a defence to the infringement action but expands the subject-matter and value in dispute of the proceedings. The court rejected the Defendants' arguments that the FRAND counterclaim should be treated like a counterclaim for revocation for fee purposes or that it should be exempt from court fees.
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.