1. Key takeaways
Three-step test for determining the scope of the disclosure of the detailed description to be prepared by an expert (confirmation of UPC_CFI_539/2024).
Step 1: Does the information in question constitutes a trade secret, personal data, or other confidential information (Art. 58 UPCA)?
Step 2: Is the information irrelevant for the question of infringement? If so, this information must be redacted.
Step 3: If the information is relevant for the question of infringement: decision must be made on a case-by-case basis as to whether applicant has confidentiality obligation towards third parties or whether access is restricted to a specific group (Confidentiality Club).
Burden of proof regarding the relevance of confidential information to the question of patent infringement.
Information actually relied on by the expert: Generally considered relevant and the respondent must demonstrate irrelevance and cannot rely on the argument that infringement could have been assessed on the basis of other information.
Information not relied on by the expert: Applicant must demonstrate relevance.
Contextual relevance: Information may be relevant even if not directly necessary for claim analysis, provided it is necessary for understanding the expert’s reasoning.
2. Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_1696/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Inspection and preservation of evidence; decision on disclosure of the detailed description
5. Parties
Claimant: Topsoe A/S
Defendants: SYPOX GmbH and Josef Kerner Energiewirtschafts-GmbH
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 802 413 B1
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 58, 60 UPCA
R. 194(d), 196, 197, 199, 262A RoP.
To view the full article please click here.
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]
