1 Key takeaways
The number of US attorneys authorized to access confidential information shall not be greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of both Appellant and Respondents to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.
According 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 right 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.
As a general principle, a party is free to decide which attorneys it wishes to engage to assist it in the proceedings (above cited CoA Order of 12 February 2025, Daedalus v Xiaomi, para. 16).
It follows that a party may decide to engage its trusted advisor to assist the team of UPC representatives (...).
In order to ensure the right of Claimant to a fair trial, it is thus necessary that one of Claimant's US attorneys has access to all information available, including the confidential information, and Claimant's right to an effective remedy outweighs the interest of Defendant in restricting the access to the confidential information.
The request of Claimant to let its US attorneys access
the confidential information in order to ensure a proper
coordination of the UPC proceedings and a review of the
infringement analysis and arguments shall be
balanced against the legitimate expectation of Defendant to ensure
adequate protection of the
confidential information.
Claimant has not demonstrated that it is necessary to
grant access to the confidential information to more
than one trusted US attorney of Claimant to serve as a link between
Claimant and the UPC representatives.
The UPC representatives of Claimant, in addition to the assistance of two employees of Claimant who have been granted access to the confidential information, already benefit from the assistance of a technical expert selected by Claimant, who has been granted access to the confidential information.
As the appointed technical expert can address the technical understanding and analysis of the case and adequately assist Claimant's representatives for the purpose of the UPC proceedings, there is no need to also grant another US attorney-at-law of Claimant with regard to his technical qualifications as an engineer access to the confidential information in the case-at-hand.
2 Division
Court of Appeal
3 UPC number
APL_12280/2025, UPC_CoA_221/2025
APL_12281/2025, UPC_CoA_222/2025
APL_12282/2025, UPC_CoA_223/2025
APL_18551/2025, UPC_CoA_356/2025
APL_18559/2025, UPC_CoA_357/2025
APL_18550/2025, UPC_CoA_355/2025
4 Type of proceedings
Appeal and cross-appeal against Court order on confidentiality (members of confidentiality club)
5 Parties
CLAIMANT:
Network Systems Technologies LLC (Portland, United States)
DEFENDANTS:
- Qualcomm Incorporated (San Diego, United States)
- Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. (San Diego, United States)
- Qualcomm Germany GmbH (Munich, Germany)
6 Patent(s)
EP 1 552 669, EP 1 875 683, EP 1 552 399
7 Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262A.6 RoP
2025-7-3 UPC_CoA_221_2025 APL_12280_2025 et al_en
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.
