UPClytics
EnglishDeutsch
Sign inSign up
View all cases

UPC CFI 1035/2025

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

SEP (unclear)
Case details
Status
—
Action
Procedural application
Category
Document Access (RoP262)
Parties
Claimants
Reps: Oliver Jan Jüngst (Bird & Bird LLP); Lucas Brons (Bird & Bird LLP); Felix Landry (Bird & Bird LLP); Leonard Lotz (Bird & Bird LLP)
Respondents
Reps: Tilman Müller-Stoy (Bardehle Pagenberg); Jan Bösing (Bardehle Pagenberg); Tobias Kaufmann (Bardehle Pagenberg); Christian Haupt (Bardehle Pagenberg)
Division
—
Judges
—
Technology
Computing & AI
Language
—
First decided
May 11, 2026
Decisions
  • 2026-05-11
    Procedural onlyProceduralApplication 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.

    Legal issues: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
Documents
  • R.%20262A%20RoP%20Order_signed.pdf2026-05-11EN
Accepted arguments
What the court agreed with — by party.

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

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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.

    ClaimantLegal basis: 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.

    ClaimantLegal basis: Art. 58 UPCA; R. 262A.6 RoP; UPC_CFI_219/2023; UPC_CFI_240/2023; UPC_CFI_169/2024
Rejected arguments
What the court did not agree with — and why.

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

    RespondentLegal basis: 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.

    RespondentLegal basis: R. 262A RoP