- within Transport topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Information disclosed to the other party without a confidentiality restriction will generally lose protection as a trade secret or other confidential information
The Court of Appeal confirms that a request under R. 262.2 RoP does not in itself prevent the other party from using or disclosing information already communicated without restriction. Where information has been disclosed without an order under R. 262A RoP, or without another limitation such as an agreement or voluntary undertaking, it will generally no longer qualify as protected trade secret or confidential information for the purposes of later access restrictions.
R. 262 and R. 262A RoP cover trade secrets and other confidential information, but protection must be secured in time
The Court states that R. 262 and R. 262A RoP are not limited to trade secrets in the strict sense, but also extend to other confidential information. Even so, EOFlow's appeal failed because most of the information at issue had already been provided to Insulet and submitted in the first-instance proceedings without a prior confidentiality order. Only the settlement agreement was accepted as confidential in nature, but the specific information addressed in the appeal was held no longer to be confidential once disclosed in the published order.
2. Division
Court of Appeal, Panel 2
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_930/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal against an order denying a request under R. 262.2 RoP
5. Parties
Appellant / defendant in first instance:
EOFlow Co., Ltd.
Respondent / applicant in first instance:
Insulet Corporation.
6. Patent(s)
EP 4 201 327
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 58 UPCA
R. 262 RoP
R. 262A RoP
