UPC CFI LD Mannheim, 10 July 2024: Confidentiality club rules in a FRAND case

Confidential information and confidentiality club rules in a FRAND case (Article 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP). 

Confidential information (Rule 262A RoP). 

Not accepted 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. A subsequent restriction of access on the part of the defendant is out of the question. Rather, this information can generally only be restricted in its intended use and be subject to protection against disclosure to uninvolved third parties in accordance with Rule 262 RoP. 

Likewise, the 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. This is because it is a procedural step ordered by the court, which must also be reflected in the court's orders. 

Confidentiality club rules (Rule 262A RoP, Article 48 UPCA). 

In the present case, the extension of access to the information in need of protection to three employees of the defendant is necessary, but also sufficient. 

Access to the information in need of protection in proceedings before the UPC is to be granted exclusively to authorised representatives pursuant to Art 48 UPCA who are authorised to represent the parties in the specific proceedings. 

IPPT20240710, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi