- in European Union
- in European Union
- in European Union
- with readers working within the Healthcare industries
- within Media, Telecoms, IT, Entertainment, Transport and Family and Matrimonial topic(s)
- with Senior Company Executives, HR and Inhouse Counsel
The UPC's Court of Appeal (CoA) has issued a decision dealing with the issue of protection of trade secrets and confidential information in UPC proceedings(EOFlow v Insulet UPC_CoA_930/2025,18 March 2026).
Background
On 22 July 2025, the Milan Central Division (CD) found that EOFlow had infringed Insulet's patent EP4201327 for a fluid delivery and glucose monitoring device. An injunction was ordered and EOFlow was required to disclose information concerning its acts of infringement since 19 June 2024.
Following this, EOFlow asked the Milan CD to issue an order protecting its information as confidential. The Court refused the request on the basis that there was not sufficient evidence that any of the information being disclosed was a genuine trade secret (UPC_CFI_1167/2025). EOFlow appealed to the CoA.
CoA decision on implicit procedural limitation on information disclosed in proceedings
In this case, the information EOFlow was seeking to protect had already been disclosed without confidentiality restrictions in response to an earlier order issued by the Milan CD. However, EOFlow submitted that the fact the information had been provided to Insulet under an obligation to render accounts did not mean it had become public, as there was an implicit procedural limitation preventing Insulet from using the information beyond the purpose of pursuing their patent infringement claims.
The CoA dismissed the appeal, upholding the Milan CD's rejection of EOFlow's arguments. It confirmed that there is no implicit restriction on the use of information obtained as a result of the other party's compliance with an order of the UPC. Confidentiality obligations will only arise if the court issues an order expressly restricting the use of the information.
Since Insulet received the information from EOFlow without any restriction (i.e. without a Court ordered obligation or any other restriction, for example an agreement between the parties or a voluntary undertaking), the information was held to be at least no longer a trade secret or other confidential information. The CoA highlighted that the same does not apply to information supplied during negotiations for a settlement agreement, thus such information can be restricted as confidential, but that did not apply on the facts of this case.
Key takeaways
Parties must be careful to ensure that appropriate confidentiality restrictions are agreed with the other party or confirmed by the court before providing any information pursuant to an order of the UPC.
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.
