Article 67

Power to order the communication of information

1.   The Court may, in response to a justified and proportionate request of the applicant and in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, order an infringer to inform the applicant of:

(a) the origin and distribution channels of the infringing products or processes;

(b) the quantities produced, manufactured, delivered, received or ordered, as well as the price obtained for the infringing products; and

(c) the identity of any third person involved in the production or distribution of the infringing products or in the use of the infringing process.

2.   The Court may, in accordance with the Rules of Procedure, also order any third party who:

(a) was found in the possession of the infringing products on a commercial scale or to be using an infringing process on a commercial scale;

(b) was found to be providing on a commercial scale services used in infringing activities; or

(c) was indicated by the person referred to in points (a) or (b) as being involved in the production, manufacture or distribution of the infringing products or processes or in the provision of the services,

to provide the applicant with the information referred to in paragraph 1.

See also: Rule 191 RoP

Case Law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20260318, UPC CoA, EOFlow v Insulet
Trade secrets or other confidential information ae no longer trade secrets or other confidential information if they are disclosed to the other party without an order pursuant to R. 262A RoP, or without any other restriction, for example an agreement between the parties or a voluntary undertaking. A request under R. 262.2 RoP does not automatically lead to protection against the other party disclosing the information. Only a R. 262A RoP application allows the Court to restrict the use of confidential information by the other party. Once the information has been communicated by serving the briefs without any restriction (….), it is no longer confidential. 

IPPT20260129, UPC CoA, OEFlow v Insulet
No limitation on the use of information received pursuant to a court order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, R. 191 RoP.) without a confidentiality request under R. 262A RoP, which applies at least mutatis mutandis. This already follows from the fact that, according to R. 190.1, second sentence, RoP, the Court may for the protection of confidential information, order that the evidence be disclosed to certain named persons only and be subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure. This is also applicable to communication of information “as is specified in Article 67 of the Agreement” pursuant to R. 191 RoP. The same must apply in cases where the court orders the communication of information pursuant to Art. 67 UPCA. For this reason, EOFlow would have been required to submit a R. 262A RoP application

IPPT20251106, UPC CoA, Black Sheep Retail v HL Display
Application for suspensive effect of order to communicate information unfounded (R. 223 RoP, Article 74 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA). Communication of information belongs to measures that, when so ordered, are necessary to ensure a high level of protection. It is thus only under exceptional circumstances that the enforcement of such measures may be suspended. If the defendant can reasonably foresee that the orders and evidence requested by the claimant may require it to disclose confidential information, this should be raised by the defendant during the proceedings on the merits.

IPPT20250813, UPC CoA, Boehringer Ingelheim v Zentiva
Application for an order to communicate information of existing infringement denied (Article 67 UPCA). When there is no allegation of any completed infringement and no indication that the requested information actually exists, as well as any explanation that the requested information is reasonably necessary for the purpose of advancing that party's case, the purpose of such an order is lacking. 

IPPT20250606, UPC CoA, NUC v Hurom
Suspensive effect rejected (Article 74 UPCA, R. 223 RoP) of appeal against order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, Article 8 Enforcement Directive). The provisions of Art. 67 UPCA mirror those of Article 8 of the Enforcement Directive” which, is designed to ensure a high level of protection in all the Member States of the European Union, and allows precise information to be obtained on the origin of the infringing goods or services, the distribution channels and the identity of any third parties involved in the infringement (Enforcement Directive, Preamble para. 21). It is thus only under exceptional circumstances that the enforcement of such measures may be suspended under R. 223 RoP. Even if disclosure of the information pending the appeal would to some extent undermine the purpose of the appeal against this part of the impugned decision, it must be shown that the appeal becomes devoid of purpose without suspensive effect and that its interests in maintaining the confidentiality of the information pending the appeal outweigh the respondent’s interests in immediately obtaining the relevant information.

IPPT20250530, UPC CoA, Belkin v Philips

Time period for communication of information (Article 67 UPCA): Must be determined in the decision on the merits. Must be reasonable, taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case. In determining the length of this period, particular consideration must be given, amongst other, to the scope of the information required to be provided, the time period to which the disclosure relates, and the resources available to the obliged party. Begins upon notification pursuant to R. 118.8, first sentence, RoP – must be included in the claimant’s corresponding application. If, as in the present case, no time period is specified in the final decision, it is the responsibility of the claimant to set a time period for the provision of information when notifying the defendant of the intention to enforce the decision. Failure to submit the information in electronic form does not per se constitute violation of an order under Article 67 UPCA.

IPPT20250430, UPC CoA, Insulet v EOFlow
Successful appeal: provisional injunction and order to communicate information granted (Article 62 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA, R. 206 RoP). 

IPPT20250214, UPC CoA, Abbott v Sibio
Impugned order revoked (Article 75 UPCA) – provisional measures granted (Article 62 UPCA). Measures mentioned in Article 67 UPCA may also be ordered in the framework of provisional measure proceedings, always provided that there is an urgent interest and such measures are proportionate (Article 62 UPCA). 

Court of First Instance

IPPT20250911, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Washtower v Wasombouw
Preliminary injunction for direct infringement (Article 25 UPCA, Article 62 UPCA, R. 211 RoP), order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA), recall (Article 64(2)(b) UPCA )and cost award (Article 69 UPCA).

IPPT20250804, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC
Additional two weeks extension, because of summer vacation period, of the time period for comments on claimant’s request for imposition of a penalty payment to enforce the Defendant’s obligation to provide information (R. 9.3(a) RoP, Article 67 UPCA) . 

IPPT20250731, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Texport v Sioen
Liability for damages of (unregistered) exclusive licensee (Article 68 UPCA). Order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA, R. 191 RoP). The claimant also has a right to information needed to verify the information and to calculate the damage. 

IPPT20250730, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Recurring penalty of up to € 30.000 on non-proper fulfilment of the obligation to provide information pursuant to order to communicate information of 10 July 2025 (R. 354.3 RoP; Article 67 UPCA). No further deadline required as the deadline was has already been set by the plaintiff (R. 118.1 RoP). Application is successful insofar as the applicant additionally seeks the threat of penalty payments. Setting a maximum limit per day gives the local chamber the necessary flexibility to also take into account the respondent's conduct in the event of an infringement and, on that basis, to be able to set an appropriate penalty payment in accordance with R. 354(4) RoP.

IPPT20250718, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Fujifilm v Kodak - I

No time period in advance for communicating information (Article 67 UPCA) On the instant facts, considering the complexity, the panel regards it as not feasible to set an appropriate time period in advance in the individual case at hand. Whether the Defendants will have provided the required information in due time, depends on the circumstances and will be assessed in the enforcement proceedings, if necessary. 

IPPT20250710, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Aesculap v Shanghai International
Preliminary injunction, seizure and order to communicate information granted (Article 62 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA)). Urgent interest regarding information on the origin and distribution channels to prevent future infringements, not with regard to production costs, profits and advertising, which is primarily relevant for the calculation of damages (Article 67 UPCA, R. 209.2(b) RoP)

IPPT20250602, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC
Confidentiality club application dismissed (R. 262A RoP) for information to be communicated  pursuant to a court order (Article 67 UPCA). Restrictions inherent to the order to provide information on the use of the information: The information, which Defendants have been ordered to provide, may only be used to identify third infringers, to determine and calculate damages and to verify information obtained from the Defendants in this regard (cf. decision on the merits, para. 121). In particular, Claimant is not allowed to use the information in order to gain a competitive advantage. Moreover, any unauthorised or improper use may in addition constitute a breach of business secrecy within the meaning of Directive (EU) 2016/943 (“Trade Secrets Directive”)

IPPT20250410, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Yellow Sphere v Tabbert

Direct patent infringement (Article 25 UPCA), revocation dismissed: permanent injunction (Article 63(1) UPCA), provision of information (Article 67 UPCA), and corrective measures (Article 64 UPCA): recall, removing the product from channels of commerce , destruction (Article 64(2)(e) UPCA), Provisional damages of € 100.000 (Article 68 UPCA). 

IPPT20250311, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Hurom v NUC - I
Right to information of Article 67 UPCA and Article 68 UPCA may encompass time periods which resided before the entry into force of the UPCA. The question of intertemporal applicability of a right to information and the question of the scope of the period, for which information has to be provided, have to be distinguished. 

IPPT20241217, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Philips v Belkin
Information can be communicated in paper form or electronically (Article 67 UPCA) unless the judgement specifically determines otherwise. 

IPPT20241122, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO
Infringement of 4G standard essential patent: Order to communicate information (Article 67 UPCA), Claimant has a right to information needed to verify the information and to calculate the damage (Article 67 UPCA, Article 68 UPCA, R. 190 RoP)

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 - 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.

IPPT20241007, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Abbott v Dexcom
Order following interim conference (R. 105 RoP). Application to provide information dismissed as disproportionate (Article 67 UPCA, Article 8 Enforcement Directive, Rule 191 RoP). The Court order has to be as precise as possible, so that the obligated person may understand without a doubt what kind of information one has to provide. 

IPPT20240731, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Abbott v DexCom
Request for information regarding distribution chain admissible but dismissed (Article 67 UPCA, Rule 191 RoP, Article 8 Enforcement Directive). Rule 191 RoP can be invoked at different stages of the procedure: during the proceedings, in order to compel parties to submit information with regard to submissions to be made, or at the stage of the final decision. Furthermore, the Court notes that it is appropriate to apply the same reasoning in relation to the right to information under EU Enforcement Directive 2004/48 (Art. 8), which allows a request to be made at any stage of the procedure. Request for information dismissed: not sufficiently justified as the applicant fails to demonstrate that the requested information is reasonably necessary for the purpose of advancing that party’s case. Disclosure of the entire distribution chain of the allegedly infringing products, in a situation where ABBOTT has deliberately chosen to act only against certain distributors, would be disproportionate and not sufficiently directly related to the present case. Moreover, as suggested as an alternative by DEXCOM in its written comments, ABBOTT would still have the possibility of requesting the disclosure of targeted information on the role of each of the defendants in the infringement established by a decision on the merits, in order to determine the damages owed by each of the defendant entities.

IPPT20240703, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Kaldewei v Bette

No obligation to lay open books in infringement proceedings (Article 68 UPCA, Rule 131 RoP, Rule 141 RoP). Request to lay open books is part of the proceedings to determine the amount of damages ordered and, where applicable, precedes the quantified claim for damages. Entitlement in infringement proceedings to request information which the plaintiff needs in order to be able to check the validity of information and to obtain indications for its calculation of damages. (Article 68 UPCA, Article 67 UPCA, Rule 191 RoP). In terms of content, such a request is directed at information on the cost factors on which the defendant relies when calculating its profits. In addition, the patent proprietor may, within the scope of this right of disclosure, also request documentary evidence for the information pursuant to Art. 67 (1) UPCA, namely invoices or, if these are not available, alternatively delivery notes.