UPClytics
DeutschEnglish
AnmeldenRegistrieren
Alle Fälle anzeigen

UPC CFI 1035/2025

—·EP3909047: DOUBLE DATA RATE CIRCUIT AND DATA GENERATION METHOD IMPLEMENTING PRECISE DUTY CYCLE CONTROL

SEP (unklar)
Verfahrensdetails
Status
—
Verfahrensart
Verfahrensantrag
Kategorie
Akteneinsicht (RoP262)
Parteien
Kläger
Vertreter: Oliver Jan Jüngst (Bird & Bird LLP); Lucas Brons (Bird & Bird LLP); Felix Landry (Bird & Bird LLP); Leonard Lotz (Bird & Bird LLP)
Beklagte
Vertreter: Tilman Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg); Jan Bösing (Bardehle Pagenberg); Tobias Kaufmann (Bardehle Pagenberg); Christian Haupt (Bardehle Pagenberg)
Division
—
Richter
—
Technology
Computing & AI
Sprache
—
Erste Entscheidung
11. Mai 2026
Entscheidungen
  • 2026-05-11
    Nur prozessualProzessualApplication RoP262A

    The court granted the claimant's application for a confidentiality order under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP, classifying certain highlighted passages of the TechInsights report (Exhibit BB 24) as confidential. Access to the confidential information is restricted: the claimant's side is limited to its external legal representatives and support staff (excluding the claimant entity itself), while the defendants and their representatives have unrestricted access.

    Rechtsfragen:Confidentiality order under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoPUS export control restrictions on TechInsights reverse-engineering reportLitigation privilege under R. 288 RoPConfidentiality order against the requesting party itselfMinimum natural-person requirement under R. 262A.6 RoP and waiver thereof
Dokumente
  • R.%20262A%20RoP%20Order_signed.pdf2026-05-11EN
Angenommene Argumente
Was das Gericht akzeptiert hat — nach Partei.

  • The TechInsights report is not publicly available despite being published on 21 June 2024; access required a contractual licence and fee payment to TechInsights.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 58 UPCA; R. 262A RoP

  • Submitting the TechInsights report in the proceedings could violate US export control restrictions, justifying a confidentiality order to protect the claimant from that risk.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 58 UPCA; R. 262A RoP

  • A confidentiality order may be issued against the requesting party itself (excluding the claimant entity from access) where there is a legitimate interest, and the addressee of R. 262A.6 RoP protection may waive the natural-person requirement.

    KlägerRechtsgrundlage: Art. 58 UPCA; R. 262A.6 RoP; UPC_CFI_219/2023; UPC_CFI_240/2023; UPC_CFI_169/2024
Zurückgewiesene Argumente
Was das Gericht nicht akzeptiert hat — und warum.

  • The report is publicly available because the claimant stated it was 'published on 21 June 2024', so no confidentiality protection is warranted.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: Art. 58 UPCA; R. 262A RoP

  • The claimant failed to submit the underlying TechInsights agreement, failed to identify the specific contractual provision breached, and failed to specify which US export control regulation would be violated, so no confidentiality order should issue.

    BeklagterRechtsgrundlage: R. 262A RoP