2024-01-30 - LD Paris - DexCom v. Abbott - UPC_CFI_230/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_230/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Paris (FR) Local Division
- Art:
- Order
- Parteien:
- Dexcom, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, Abbott Diabetes Care inc, Abbott France, Abbott NV/SA, Abbott B.V, Abbott S.r.l, Abbott Sacandinavia Aktiebolag, Abbott GmbH, Abbott Diagnostics Gmbh, Abbott Logistics B.V
Kernaussage: Refusal to review (Panel review R333) the confidentiality order: no need to change the amount of the fine in case of breach of confidentiality (parallel proceedings in Munich).
2024-01-30 - LD Paris - DexCom
v.
Abbott - UPC_CFI_230/2023
Refusal to review (Panel review R333) the confidentiality order: no need to change the amount of the fine in case of breach of confidentiality (parallel proceedings in Munich).
notable
The Paris Local Division, sitting as full panel on a Rule 333 RoP review, refused to align its confidentiality-order fine ceiling (EUR 50,000 per breach) with the higher ceiling (EUR 250,000) fixed by a Munich LD order of 31 December 2023 in parallel proceedings between the same parties over a different patent. The panel held that different divisions, even in overlapping proceedings, are not bound by each other's case-management decisions, and that the rapporteur had rightly considered the EUR 250,000 amount disproportionate in light of the partial prior public disclosure of the information in national German proceedings. The panel also declined to adopt Dexcom's proposed proviso carving out double-fine situations, stressing that proportionality is assessed in concreto at the moment of any breach, taking prior fines into account. The order illustrates the UPC's refusal to treat parallel-division orders as cross-binding and the judge-rapporteur's broad discretion to calibrate R. 262A RoP protective measures.
Stichwörter
Trade secret protection. Confidentiality club. Fine for breach. Parallel proceedings. Setting of the amount of the fine at the time of the request to allow a condemnation. Legal grounds: Rule 333 RoP, EU Directive 2016/943 on Trade secret, article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP.