- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
In response to confidentiality interests asserted by the respondent to an application for preservation of evidence (the alleged infringer), the court may order a partial redaction of the expert report before its release to the applicant (the patent holder)
The court mandated the redaction of specific commercial data. This includes prices and order quantities, which were classified as trade secrets and deemed not relevant for assessing patent infringement at this stage. Bank account details must also be redacted, as they constitute confidential information that is irrelevant to the proceedings.
In contrast, key technical information must be disclosed. Details on the product's metal coating and winding pitch were not considered confidential, as they are externally recognizable or standard product features. The expert's findings on the patent's dependent claims are also to be disclosed, because the respondent failed to demonstrate a specific, overriding confidentiality interest in this information.
The court establishes a three-step test for the disclosure of potentially confidential information
First, the court conducts an examination to determine whether the information constitutes trade secrets, personal data, or other confidential information. This initial classification is the foundation for any protective measures.
Second, if the information is confidential, its relevance is assessed. Information that is deemed irrelevant to the question of patent infringement or the extent of the acts of use is redacted. This protects the responding party's interests without hindering the applicant's ability to argue their case.
Third, if the information is both confidential and relevant, the court performs a balancing of interests. It decides on a case-by-case basis whether to disclose the information under a general confidentiality obligation or to restrict access to a limited group of persons, often known as a "Confidentiality Club."
2. Division
Local Division Düsseldorf
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_539/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Order re confidentiality (Rule 262A RoP)
5. Parties
Bekaert Binjiang Steel Cord Co.
v.
Siltronic AG a. o.
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 212 356 B1
7. Jurisdictions
Germany
8. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 58, 60 UPCA, Rrule 262A 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]