- within Litigation and Mediation & Arbitration topic(s)
- with readers working within the Banking & Credit industries
- within Technology topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Art. 60(1) UPCA is a lex specialis displacing general confidentiality rules under Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262, 262A RoP in evidence preservation proceedings (Sec. 30)
While Art. 58 UPCA and Rules 262 and 262A RoP grant the Court a discretion to order confidentiality measures to protect confidential information, Art. 60(1) UPCA mandatorily requires the Court to protect confidential information – except in very specific cases where the respondent’s confidentiality interests clearly cannot exist. It is thus the responsibility of the Court to ensure the protection of confidential information, in particular, in ex parte proceedings (Sec. 29 et seqq.).
The respondent has a legal interest under Rule 197.3 RoP to seek a review of the order to preserve evidence limited solely to amending confidentiality measures
Confidentiality measures had been ordered, which failed to oblige the applicants’ representatives to maintain confidentiality of the information that became apparent during the inspection and/or preservation of evidence. The request for review therefore did not challenge the entire evidence preservation order but only the lacking obligation of applicant’s representatives which was held to be admissible. Since confidentiality measures are integral to the order’s regulatory scope under Rule 196.1 RoP, the respondent has a legitimate legal interest in correcting confidentiality gaps, separate from the merits of the request (Sec. 19-20).
Confidentiality obligations must extend to the applicant’s representatives
To prevent protection gaps under Art. 60(1) UPCA, confidentiality obligations must extend to the applicant’s representatives (Sec. 30-34).
The respondent is not required to substantiate concrete confidential information
Requiring the respondent to list all confidential information would be inappropriate and procedurally inefficient, especially since the respondent cannot know what the applicant’s representatives actually perceived. Under Rule 197.6 RoP, the Court must maintain confidentiality for accessed information upon amending an ex parte order (Sec. 38 et seqq.).
2. Division
Local Division Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_1746/2026
UPC_CFI_1747/2026
UPC_CFI_1751/2026
UPC_CFI_1752/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Provisional Measures – Request to preserve evidence and to inspect premises
5. Parties
Applicant: Reinhausen GmbH
Respondent: Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 427 283 B1
EP 3 427 284 B1
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 60 UPCA, R. 192, 197.3, 199 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
