Philipp Bovenkamp’s articles from Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
- in European Union
- with readers working within the Healthcare industries
Bardehle Pagenberg are most popular:
- within Privacy topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Market data from providers requiring confidentiality qualifies as confidential information under R. 262.2, R. 262A.1 RoP and Art. 58 UPCA, extending beyond trade secrets per Art. 39(2) TRIPS
The Court confirmed that R. 262 and R. 262A RoP protect not only trade secrets within the meaning of Art. 39(2) TRIPS Agreement but also “other confidential information” pursuant to Art. 58 UPCA. Commercial market data sourced from data providers who require users to maintain confidentiality falls within this broader category.
Confidentiality club size must be proportionate under R. 262A.6 RoP, considering each person’s role, relevance of data, and trustworthiness
The Court permitted the appellant access for three natural persons — two from legal/IP departments and one product manager — reasoning that since the market data related to the appellant’s own products, a commercial representative was best placed to verify its accuracy. The data being classified as not “highly confidential” further supported broader access.
The Court balanced the parties’ access rights with reference to Art. 42(2) UPCA (right to a fair trial), noting that four representatives of the respondents had been granted access to the appellant’s confidential data in a prior order in the same proceedings.
Strict use restrictions imposed on confidential information; culpable breach may incur a penalty
The appellant was ordered to take appropriate measures to safeguard confidentiality. An exception to the use restriction applies only where the receiving party independently obtained the same information from a source not bound by confidentiality obligations to the respondents or their affiliated companies.
2. Division
Court of Appeal
3. UPC number
UPC_CoA_61/2026
4. Type of proceedings
Appeal proceedings (provisional measures) — interlocutory order on confidentiality
5. Parties
Appellant: SharkNinja Operating LLC.
Respondents:
- Groupe SEB France,
- S.A.S SEB,
- SEB International Service (SIS),
- Groupe SEB WMF Consumer GmbH
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 689 198
7. Jurisdictions
UPC
8. Body of legislation / Rules
R. 262 RoP, R. 262A RoP, R. 222 RoP, Art. 42 UPCA, Art. 58 UPCA, Art. 39 TRIPS Agreement.
To view the full article please click here.
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.
