UPC CFI LD Düsseldorf, 27 March 2024: Confidentiality club rules are to be determined by the facts of a case
08-04-2024 Print this page
Confidentiality club membership rules are to balance (i) the right to have unlimited access to the file documents against (ii) the interest to protect confidential information, on the facts of a particular case (Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP).
Whereas certain guidelines how this balance can be struck may be developed, a schematic solution is not possible.
Request, that employees from claimant’s R & D department must not be granted access, denied. Claimant sets out in detail with persuasive arguments why it is necessary to exchange with these employees exactly, who are in a position to comment on defendants’ allegations before the background of the technical expertise in and knowledge of the industry sector. In a dispute revolving around technical aspects it is of fundamental importance that a party may have resort to technically qualified employees in order to exercise its right to be heard. Only in rare circumstances where e.g. cutting-edge technical improvements are at stake, which put the proprietor in a significant pole position on the market, further restrictions may be considered to be proportionate. This is not the case here.
Requests of the defendants to set out in further detail, in which way the claimant has to organize itself in order to prevent the breach of the court’s protective order rejected. The information is sufficiently protected by the order of the court without such detailed measures to be ordered. A breach of the order will result in severe penalty payments.
Rejected as manifestly disproportionate on the instant facts requests to impose upon the named employees to refrain from getting involved in research and development, pricing or any other competitive decision making, and shall not be involved in prosecution of patent applications for a period of 5 years after the end of the present proceedings (including potential appeal proceedings).
