UPC CoA, 26 January 2026: Confendiality club - FRAND and a licensing bar

21-03-2026 Print this page
Editor:
Dick van Engelen

Confidentiality club regime to include a licensing bar R. 262A RoP). 

 

Confidentiality club regime: proportionality of measures (R. 262A RoP, Article 9(3) Trade Secrets Directive). When deciding on the measures for the protection of confidential information and assessing their proportionality, the Court must take into account the need to ensure the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, the legitimate interests of the parties and, where appropriate, of third parties, and any potential harm for either of the parties, and, where appropriate, for third parties, resulting from the granting or rejection of such measures (cf. Art. 9(3) TSD). 

 

Confidentiality club membership for legal persons (R. 262A.6 RoP, Article 9(2) Trade Secrets Directive). A legal person should be able to propose a natural person or natural persons to ensure proper representation of that legal person. Access of that natural person to be determined on the basis of the relevant circumstances of the case, including the role of that person in the proceedings before this Court, the relevance of the confidential information to the performance of that role and the trustworthiness of the person. The fact that a person is an employee of a party is, as a general rule, not sufficient to deny access to that person.  Access for a party’s employee will often be essential to ensure compliance with the right of that party to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. aving full access for, at least, one of its employees, as a general rule, outweighs the interests of the applicant, even if imposing a EEO regime would be preferable from the perspective of safeguarding confidentiality. 

 

 

IPPT20260126, UPC CoA, Luxembourg, Ercison v Asustek