UPC CFI 1034/2025

At the UPC: Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. (4 cases)·Micron Technology, Inc. (6 cases)

• 2026-09-02
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: Düsseldorf Local Division procedural order of the presiding judge as rapporteur (2 Sep 2026) in Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v Micron Technology, Inc. and three Micron affiliates (EP 3 909 047, with counterclaim docket UPC_CFI_931/2026): the claimant's R. 9.2 RoP request to disregard as late the defendants' new Rejoinder arguments (Z01M-die prior-use right, deactivated 'internal mode' of the Y2BM die, Exhibit BP 12) is deferred to the panel for decision during or after the oral hearing; under R. 36 RoP the claimant may respond in writing to the Z01M-die prior-use arguments by 17 Sep 2026.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • R. 9.2 RoP request to disregard late-filed arguments deferred to the panel (ZTE v Samsung, Dai Nippon v Zapp, Oppo v Panasonic)
  • R. 36 RoP further exchange of written pleadings granted as a precaution
  • prior-use right defence raised for the first time in the Rejoinder
• 2026-08-17
  InfringementPublic

  Summary: Order under Art. 58 UPCA and R. 262A RoP restricting access to information classified as confidential to the claimant's UPC representatives and named employees, imposing a strict confidentiality obligation with a possible penalty payment, and allowing the defendants to withdraw the information from the proceedings by 20 August 2026 to avoid US export-control exposure. The defendants' application was otherwise dismissed.

  Show the legal issues (3)

  • protection of confidential information (Art. 58 UPCA, R. 262A RoP)
  • confidentiality club
  • export control restrictions
• 2026-04-01
  Application RoP262APublic

  Summary: The court issued a confidentiality protection order under R. 262A RoP at the defendants' application, protecting certain passages in the Statement of Defence, Counterclaim for Revocation and Exhibit BP 6 containing confidential financial information (estimated gross profit figures for 2026). Access to the confidential information was restricted to specific named individuals, including four employees of the claimant who were granted access without objection from the defendants.

  Show the legal issues (4)

  • R. 262A RoP confidentiality order
  • protection of trade secrets
  • access restriction to confidential financial information
  • classification of estimated gross profit figures as confidential information