1. Key takeaways
Pursuant to R. 262A.6 RoP the number of persons to whom access is restricted shall be no greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the rights of the parties to the legal proceedings to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural person from each party and the respective lawyers or other representatives of those parties to the legal proceedings.
Whether a particular person may be granted full access under this provision must 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 in keeping the information confidential.
R. 262A.6 RoP does not require that the person to whom access is given be an employee of a party or a representative within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA.
Such a requirement does not follow from the wording of the provision and would unduly restrict a party's freedom to choose its assistants in the proceedings. Therefore, the fact that the US attorneys are neither employees of the Appellant, nor representatives within the meaning of Art. 48 UPCA, does not preclude them from having full access to the confidential information under R. 262A RoP.
The fact that the Appellant also engaged a team of UPC representatives does not alter this assessment.
As a general principle, a party is free to decide which attorneys it wishes to engage to assist it in the proceedings.
In the present case, the two US attorneys are more familiar with the technology than the UPC representatives due to their involvement in the acquisition of the patent at issue. They may therefore have knowledge and expertise that the UPC representatives cannot provide, or at least not as efficiently as the US attorneys.
2. Division
Court of Appeals Luxembourg
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_621/2024
APL_58177/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement action
5. Parties
Appellant: DAEDALUS PRIME LLC
Respondents: XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY NETHERLANDS B.V. and XIAOMI TECHNOLOGY GERMANY GMBH
Intervener: MEDIATEK INC. (HEADQUARTERS)
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 792 100
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262A.6 RoP, Art. 48 UPCA
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.
