2026-05-27 - LD Düsseldorf - Brita Se v. Wessper Sp. z o.o. - UPC_CFI_779/2024

Was ist diese UPC-Entscheidung?

Zusammenfassung: After the Düsseldorf Local Division found indirect infringement of EP 1 748 830 and ordered the defendant to render an account of information and supporting documents, the defendant applied post-judgment for confidentiality protection over that disclosure under Rule 262A RoP (by analogy) and Rule 262.2 RoP. The court rejected the application. It accepted that Rule 262A RoP, though literally limited to information in a party's pleadings, can apply by analogy to information a party must disclose under a court order (EOFLOW v Insulet). However, a defendant who can reasonably foresee that the requested orders will compel disclosure of confidential information should raise the point in the main proceedings so that protective measures can be built into the decision (Kodak v Fujifilm); a post-judgment application, while not per se excluded, requires a comprehensible justification for the delay (Canon v Katun). Here the confidentiality interest and the Court of Appeal orders relied upon predated the oral hearing, so the defendant could and should have raised the matter then and offered no justification for not doing so. The Rule 262.2 RoP redaction request also failed for lack of any basis, because the disclosed information was provided out of court and is not currently part of the case file, and a purely hypothetical confidentiality order is unavailable.

Quelle und Fundstellen

Quelle: UPC Website

Aktenzeichen: UPC_CFI_779/2024