UPC CFI LD Mannheim, 20 October 2024: three rulings on access to information

04-12-2024 Print this page
Auteur:
Mzolisi Mtshaulana
IPPT20241020, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, DISH v AYLO

IPPT20241020, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, DISH v AYLO - I
A reasoned request for information under R. 191 RoP must sufficiently specify which information is requested and for what reasons. The requesting party may assert a fact that it believes to be true without fear of being accused of failing to furnish the court with truthful facts simply because the opposing party believes this to be false. It is the task of the court to assess whether a disputed fact is true by evaluating the mutual factual submissions and the evidence offered at the appropriate time. An application for transmission of information cannot be granted until the other party has been given an opportunity to respond to how the applicant intends to rely on the requested information. The Court must weigh up the interests of the parties and ensure that a requested order does not amount to unauthorized spying.

 

IPPT20241020, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, DISH v AYLO - II
Order to produce a document  (R. 190 RoP) can only be granted if it has been established that this would be used to prove a disputed fact. If it remains unknown whether the opposing side will dispute the fact which the evidence aims to prove, no order can be given.

 

IPPT20241020, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, DISH v AYLO - III
Before establishing infringement, an order to provide information (Art. 67 UPCA, R. 191(1) RoP) that is used to identify further infringers in the distribution and supply chain or to determine and calculate the damage caused by the patent infringement can only be granted under special circumstances.