2024-07-09 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic v. OPPO et al. - UPC_CFI_210/2023
- Aktenzeichen:
- UPC_CFI_210/2023
- Datum:
- Spruchkörper:
- Court of First Instance - Mannheim (DE) Local Division
- Art:
- Application Order
- Parteien:
- Panasonic Holdings Corporation vs Oppo
Kernaussage: 1.
2024-07-09 - LD Mannheim - Panasonic
v.
OPPO et al. - UPC_CFI_210/2023
1. A confidentiality order can still be issued even if a document containing confidential information has been inadvertently unedited and thus uploaded to the CMS so that it is directly visible to the opposing representatives.
2. There is also a need for legal protection for a court order for the protection of confidential information if the parties have agreed on a non-disclosure agreement (NDA).
3. In the context of disputes concerning sensitive FRAND matters, access to the information requiring protection may be granted to three natural persons of the party, depending on the circumstances of the individual case.
4. Access to the confidential information in proceedings before the UPC shall be granted exclusively to registered representatives pursuant to Art. 48 UPCA who represent the parties in the specific proceedings and in further proceedings before the UPC. Disclosure to legal representatives appointed in parallel national proceedings for the purpose of use in national proceedings is not permitted (contrary to Local Chamber Munich, Panel 1, order of July 4, 2024, UPC_CFI_220/2023, ORD_26378/2024).
landmark
The Mannheim Local Division issued a comprehensive R. 262A RoP confidentiality order in the Panasonic v Oppo SEP/FRAND dispute, establishing four cornerstones that shape UPC confidentiality practice: (i) a protective order may be issued even where the protected document was previously uploaded unredacted to the CMS by accident, because the order still prevents further onward dissemination — counsel who recognise the document as mistakenly unredacted are arguably not free to pass it on immediately to the client pending a pending R. 262A RoP application; (ii) a private NDA does not eliminate the legal interest in a R. 262A RoP order, because the UPC can impose uncapped penalties (R. 354.3 RoP), protect against third-party file-access requests, and because CMS-level document protection is technically dependent on the existence of a pending R. 262A RoP application; (iii) third-party licence agreements are protectable beyond merely the licensee's name — industry peers can infer identity from contract terms, and licensees retain an interest in the content remaining confidential even if their identity becomes public; (iv) access is limited to three trusted persons per defendant side and to UPC-authorised Art. 48 UPCA representatives only, coordination with Munich LD parallel UPC cases is permitted but coordination with UK or national-court counsel is refused — expressly disagreeing with the Munich LD Panel 1 order of 4 July 2024. The Division also reaffirmed that the abstract chronology of FRAND negotiations, and the procedural fact that the patentee sought third-party consent to disclose licences, fall within the public-register principle and cannot be fully shielded.
Stichwörter
Confidentiality, FRAND, SEP, national procedures, representatives under Art. 48 UPCA
Inoffiziell
Inoffizielle KI-Übersetzung
Dies ist eine automatische, von KI erstellte Übersetzung, die Fehler enthalten kann. Rechtsverbindlich ist allein das Originaldokument in der Verfahrenssprache (German).