UPC CFI LD Mannheim, 9 July 2024: Confidentiality club rules: disclosure limited to representatives in UPC proceedings only

12-07-2024 Print this page
IPPT20240709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Orope

Confidentiality and confidentiality club rules (Rule 262A RoP)

 

Disclosure limited to authorized representatives (article 48 UPCA) in proceedings before UPC Local Divisions in Mannheim and Munich. 

 

The issuance of a secrecy protection order is not excluded simply because the plaintiff inadvertently uploaded her reply in a workflow relating to another parallel proceeding before the Mannheim Local Court without redaction and thus without further restrictions visible to the defendant. 

 

The conclusion of a non-disclosure agreement (NDA) does not eliminate the need for secrecy protection under Rule 262A RoP. 

 

Defendant’s view that - insofar as third-party licence agreements submitted in the proceedings are concerned - only the mere name of the contractual partners is in need of protection is not convincing. 

 

Plaintiff's view that the circumstances of the negotiations between the parties, which are naturally already known to the defendants, are to be fully protected under Rule 262A RoP, cannot be accepted. 

 

Likewise, plaintiff’s view that the very fact that the plaintiff enquired with the third-party licence agreement partners on the basis of the court's instructions and requested their consent to the submission must be kept secret cannot be accepted. In the present case, the extension of access to the information in need of protection to three employees of the defendants is necessary, but also sufficient.

 

IPPT20240709, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Orope