UPC_CFI_100/2024_Sept10_Correction – Ona v Google (Correction)
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Corrections of 9 September order Facts See hereabove with respect to the 9 September order. The JR For clarity, the Court’s order of 9 September 2025 should include an explicit statement that the information provided by claimant for which is asked protection is confidential. The JR orders accordingly. Comment 1. Although I think the decision of 9 September 2025 was clear for (good faith) readers, the JR is applauded by not saying that but just make the correction avoiding each possible discussion. 2. I wonder how the JR found out that there was something missing. Did he himself or the Registrar noted it, or was it one of the parties who spotted it. As to the latter, the decision does not mention any application. 3. Although absolutely nothing indicates this happened here, I remind representatives that under the Code of Conduct (Art. 2.3), a representative cannot contact the judge unilaterally (e.g. by phone). I understand that certain German representatives, who as I understand can do so in their national system, have now taken the habit of contacting the (Local)(sub) Registrar for conveying messages to the JR or asking the judge to give him a call. In my view, this also goes against Art. 2.3 of the Code of Conduct.
Full Decision Text
1 Düsseldorf Local Division UPC_CFI_100/2024 UPC_CFI_411/2024 Final Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 10 September 2025 concerning EP 2 263 098 B1 CLAIMANT: Ona Patents SL, represented by its Managing Director Raúl Diaz Morales, Carrer de Calàbria 149 En. 1, 08015 Barcelona, Spain represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Christof Augenstein, Attorney-at-law Dr Ben- edikt Walesch, Attorney-at-law Dr Melissa Lutz, Kather Augen- stein, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany Patent Attorney Dipl.-Ing. Benjamin Bubendorfer, Patent Attorney M. Sc. Andreas Rauscher, WBH Wachenhausen Patentanwälte PartGmbB, Müllerstraße 40, 80469 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: augenstein@katheraugenstein.com COUNTER-DEFENDANT 2: Ekahau Oy, represented by the Board of Directors Jeremy Rossen, Brian Conrad Stewart und Ari Olavi Tourunen, Jaakonkatu 5, 00100, Helsinki, Finland represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Christof Augenstein, Attorney-at-law Dr Ben- edikt Walesch, Attorney-at-law Dr Melissa Lutz, Kather Augen- stein Rechtsanwälte PartGmbB, Bahnstraße 16, 40212 Düsseldorf, Germany Patent Attorney Dipl.-Ing. Benjamin Bubendorfer, Patent Attorney M. Sc. Andreas Rauscher, WBH Wachenhausen Patentanwälte PartGmbB, Müllerstraße 40, 80469 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: augenstein@katheraugenstein.com DEFENDANTS: 1. Google Ireland Limited, represented by its directors Elizabeth M. Cunningham, David M. Sned- don, Vanessa Hartley, Colin Goulding, Amanda Storey, Gordon House, Barrow Street 4, Dublin 4, D04 V4X7, Republic of Ireland 2 2. Google Commerce Limited, Gordon House, Barrow Street, Dublin 4, D04 E5W5, Republic of Ireland represented by: Attorney-at-law Dr Marcus Grosch, Attorney-at-law Dr Jesko Preuß, Attorney-at-law Dr Andreas Hahne, Quinn Emanuel, Her- mann-Sack-Straße 3, 80331 Munich, Germany electronic address for service: marcusgrosch@quinnemanuel.com PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent n° EP 2 263 098 B1 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by Judge Dr Thom acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: R. 262A RoP – Protection of confidential information – addition corrigendum GROUNDS OF THE ORDER: For clarity, the Court´s order of 9 September should include an explicit statement about being confidential of the information provided by the Claimant in its application dated 20 August 2025. So the confidentiality order of 9 September is hereby corrected and issued as follows. ORDER: I. The following information is classified as confidential within the meaning of Art. 58 UPCA, R.262.2 RoP: In Claimant´s brief dated 20 August 2025 named contract documents and internal com- pany information between the companies involved in the patent transfer chain, namely - the statements highlighted in grey - exhibits marked “strictly confidential”. II. Access to the unredacted version of Claimant’s brief dated 20 August 2025 and the unredacted version of Exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33 shall be restricted, on the part of the Defendants, to 3 1. the authorised representatives involved in these proceedings on their side and their staff (including experts and their team members); 2. the following individuals: - […] - […] III. Information classified as confidential in parapraph I. shall be treated as such by the Defendants’ representatives, their staff and the individuals named in paragraph II. above. It shall not be used or disclosed outside of these court proceedings, except to the extent that it has verifiably come to the knowledge of the receiving party outside of these proceedings, provided that the receiving party has obtained it on a non-con- fidential basis from a source other than the Claimant or its affiliates, provided that such a source is not bound by a confidentiality agreement or other obligation of secrecy with the Claimant or its affiliates. IV. In the event of a culpable breach of this order, the Court may impose a penalty pay- ment for each breach, to be determined having regard to the circumstances of each case. DETAILS OF THE ORDER: App_35230/2025 concerning ORD_34156/2025 referring to the main proceedings ACT_11921/2024, CC_41214/2024 UPC-Number: UPC_CFI_100/2024 and UPC_CFI_411/2024 Subject of the Proceedings: Patent infringement action and counterclaim for revocation Issued in Düsseldorf on 10 September 2025 Judge Dr Thom
Key Holdings
- Order corrected to explicitly state confidentiality.
Tags
- Confidentiality
- Rectification