UPC CoA 70/2025

Court of Appeal accepted withdrawal of STRABAG's appeal (UPC_CoA_70/2025) following an out-of-court settlement between STRABAG and SWARCO. The intervenor Chainzone's separate appeal (PC_CoA_001/2025) was declared moot under R.360 RoP, as an intervenor cannot continue an appeal that the supported party has withdrawn. Chainzone bears its own costs.

Court of Appeal ruled on confidentiality and access restriction requests in the STRABAG vs. SWARCO appeal proceedings. The Court clarified that access and use restrictions for information against a party and its representatives can only be ordered under R.262A RoP. A late application in appeal for restrictions on information filed in first-instance proceedings is inadmissible. The Court imposed confidentiality obligations on Swarco regarding Chainzone's product characteristics.

Court of Appeal (Second Panel) ruled on Strabag's and Chainzone's applications for confidentiality orders under R. 262A RoP in their appeal of the Swarco v. Strabag infringement decision from Vienna Local Division. The Court partly granted and partly rejected the applications, confirming that product characteristics not readily accessible to third parties constitute trade secrets, but rejected applications for information already submitted at first instance without a timely R. 262A request.