ARTICLE
10 August 2026

Local Division Munich, July 29, 2026, Order, UPC_CFI_515/2026, UPC_CFI_1797/2026

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
The Local Division Munich reviews a confidentiality order in patent infringement proceedings between CA, Inc. and Deutsche Telekom entities concerning EP 1 955 151. The case involves complex procedural questions under the Unified Patent Court Rules of Procedure regarding confidentiality protections and access to sensitive information in parallel infringement and revocation actions.
Germany Intellectual Property
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
  • within Technology topic(s)

Key takeaways

An “unredacted document” under R. 262A.3 RoP need not be the complete original file. An excerpt reproducing the protected information can suffice.

The decisive criterion is whether the submitted document reveals the specific information or evidence for which restriction is sought under R. 262A.1 RoP, not whether it is technically unprocessed or complete.

R. 262A.3 RoP grants the restricted party no right to inspect the entire source document from which a protected excerpt was drawn.

The provision only requires disclosure of the concrete information or evidence to be protected, so that the restricted party can submit an informed statement under R. 262A.4 RoP; broader context is generally not required.

R. 262A.3 RoP is satisfied once the restricted party received both the redacted and unredacted versions of the introduced excerpt, enabling an informed statement under R. 262A.4 RoP.

The procedural requirements are met when the claimant’s legal representatives have access to both versions of the introduced excerpt, enabling them to comment on the confidentiality of that specific information.

The equality-of-arms principle does not require disclosure of an entire underlying document merely because the opposing party may know more of its content.

What matters is which information was actually introduced into the proceedings and relied upon as the basis for submissions, not what a party subjectively knows beyond that.

Division

Local Division Munich

UPC number

UPC_CFI_515/2026, UPC_CFI_1797/2026

Type of proceedings

Review of a confidentiality order (Application under R. 333.1 RoP) in main infringement proceedings with a revocation counterclaim

Parties

Claimant and Counter-Defendant: CA, Inc.

Defendants and Counter-Claimants: Deutsche Telekom AG, Telekom Deutschland GmbH

Patent(s)

EP 1 955 151

Jurisdictions

UPC

Body of legislation / Rules

Rule 262A.1 RoP
Rule 262A.3 RoP
Rule 262A.4 RoP
Rule 333.1 RoP
Rule 333.3 RoP
Rule 220.3 RoP
Rule 190 RoP

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

[View Source]

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More