UPC_CFI_1026/2026 – Bardehle Pagenberg v Ericsson

Expert Commentary

Withdrawal Facts 1. The applicant filed a request for access to pleadings and evidence stating that their client concluded a global license agreement (“GPLA”) with Ericsson. 2. Ericsson had informed his client that the GPLA was going to be produced under a confidentiality regime in the proceedings with Verifone. 3. It wanted to check for its client if the GPLA was sufficiently protected. 4. The Judge-Rapporteur (“JR”) informed the claimant that he would not issue such an order if Ericsson fails to inform a third party about the fact that it is going to produce the agreement between Ericsson and that third party in the proceedings. 5. Ericsson pointed out that no information regarding any agreement with their licensees has been submitted in the proceedings yet. 6. Claimant withdrew its requests. The JR 1. If R. 265 RoP is to be applied, the withdrawal is permitted because the claimant and the defendant have not raised objections. 2. Only in exceptional cases, costs are awarded with respect to inspection orders. Comment 1. A simple call or email to Ericsson’s UPC representative would have had the same result? 2. I agree with the JR that an inspection order is not the way to check if a party to a license agreement did not violate the confidentiality agreed between the parties to the agreement. This should be resolved between these parties and not via a public inspection order, which does not exist for the purpose of obtaining evidence of a possible breach of contract.

Full Decision Text

1 Mannheim Local Division UPC CFI 1026/2026 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 18 May 2026 concerning EP 4 277 422, EP 2 506 479, EP 3 397 009 (Request for access to written pleadings and evidence pursuant to R. 262.1 (b) RoP concerning UPC CFI 661/2026) APPLICANT: BARDEHLE PAGENBERG Partnerschaft mbB Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte, Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675 Munich, Germany Represented by Tilman MUELLER-STOY PARTIES OF THE PROCEEDINGS UPC CFI 661/2026 (RESPONDENTS): Claimant: Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (publ), (Claimant) Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista, 164 83 Stockholm, Sweden Represented by Christopher WEBER Defendants: 1) Verifone GmbH, Seilerweg 2f, 36251 Bad Hersfeld, Germany Represented by Klaus HAFT 2) EC Cash Direkt GmbH, Karl-Hammerschmidt-Straße 1, 85609 Aschheim, Germany Represented by Klaus HAFT 2 3) Verifone Payments GmbH, Karl-Hammerschmidt-Straße 1, 85609 Aschheim, Germany Represented by Klaus HAFT 4) Adyen N.V., Simon Carmiggeltstraat 6, 1011 DJ, Amsterdam, Netherlands Represented by David POR 5) Verifone Payments B.V., Singel 250, 1016 AB Amsterdam, Netherlands Represented by Klaus HAFT 6) Verifone Sp. Z oo, ul. Wołoska 9a 02-583 Warszawa, Poland Represented by Klaus HAFT 7) Verifone Italy S.R.L., Via Nervesa 21, 20139 Milano, Italy Represented by Klaus HAFT 8) Verifone Portugal, Rua Dr. Fernando da Fonseca, Edificio Vicondede Alvalede, 7° Andar (LDA Office 7), 1600-616, Lisboa, Portugal Represented by Klaus HAFT 9) Verifone Systems France S.A.S. 32 Avenue Pierre Grenier, 92100 Boulogne- Billancourt, France Represented by Klaus HAFT 10) Verifone Denmark A/S, Knapholm 7, 2730 Herlev, Denmark Represented by Klaus HAFT 11) Verifone Sweden AB, Box 92031, 120 06 Stockholm, Sweden Represented by Klaus HAFT 12) Verifone, Inc., 11700 Great Oaks Way Suites 150, 200 & 210, Alpharetta, GA 30022, US Represented by Klaus HAFT 3 13) Verifone Systems, Inc., 817 Broadway, Suite 1100 New York, NY 10003, US Represented by Klaus HAFT PATENT AT ISSUE: European patent EP 4 277 422, EP 2 506 479, EP 3 397 009 PANEL/DIVISION: Panel of the Local Division in Mannheim DECIDING JUDGES: This order was issued by the legally qualified judge Böttcher acting as judge-rapporteur. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement action – request pursuant to R. 262.1 (b) RoP, withdrawal SUMMARY OF THE FACTS: On 23 March 2026, Applicant filed a request for access to written pleadings and evidence pursuant to R. 262.1 (b) RoP, stating that it represents a client who concluded a global licence agreement (“GLPA”) with Claimant in the proceedings concerned (UPC CFI 661/2026). Claimant and Defendants in UPC CFI 661/2026 are hereinafter referred to a “Claimant” and “Defendants”, respectively. Applicant asserts that Claimant informed Applicant’s client that Claimant included redacted analyses of the GPLA and other materials related to the formation and/or performance of the agreement(s) in its complaint in the proceedings UPC CFI 661/2026 and that it intends to submit unredacted versions thereof after having obtained confidentiality orders which allegedly limit the disclosure of confidential information. However, according to Applicant, Claimant has not yet provided Applicant’s client with sufficient information in this regard so that Applicant has a specific legitimate interest in inspecting the files of the proceedings UPC CFI 661/2026 and the written pleadings and evidence specified in its request in order to assess whether the confidential nature of the GLPA and the related information is adequately protected in the proceedings UPC CFI 661/2026. The judge-rapporteur informed Claimant that it cannot expect the LD to issue a production order regarding the third-party licence agreement in question (should this be needed), if Claimant fails to duly inform its third-party licensee concerned about the intended disclosure of the third-party licence agreement and related material and the confidentiality regime sought (cf. LD Mannheim, order of 30 April 2024, UPC CFI 223/2023, Panasonic v Xiaomi Technology Germany et al). Claimant then informed the court that it provided its licensees with an update regarding the confidentiality regime sought in the proceedings pending before the UPC – LD Mannheim (UPC CFI 661/2026) and the UPC – LD The Hague (UPC CFI 662/2026) and the current state of these proceedings and submitted documents as listed in its brief to provide them a more 4 comprehensive overview. Claimant points out that no information regarding any agreement with Claimant’s licensees has been submitted in the proceedings in question yet. In consequence, Applicant withdrew its request. After having been heard, Claimant and, by a brief submitted in the main proceedings, Defendants 1-3 and 5-13 explicitly raised no objection against the withdrawal. Defendant 4 did not comment. REASON FOR THE DECISION: Should R. 265 RoP is to be applied, by analogy, to a withdrawal of a request under R. 261.1(b) RoP, the withdrawal at hand is hereby permitted. Claimant and Defendants have raised no objections. No interests on the part of these parties are apparent that would preclude a withdrawal in favour of a decision on the merits. Compensation for costs are not to be awarded in relation to applications for access to written pleadings and evidence pursuant to R. 262.1 (b) RoP (cf. CoA, decision of 5 May 2025, UPC CoA 634/2025, Meril Italy v SWAT Medical et al, para. 32). An exceptional case in which a party may be ordered to bear any unnecessary costs it has caused the court or another party when disputing about the issue of access (Art. 69.3 UPCA) is neither asserted nor apparent. DECISION: 1. The Applicant’s withdrawal of the request for access to written pleadings and evidence pursuant to R. 262.1 (b) RoP is permitted. 2. The proceedings are declared closed. 3. This decision shall be entered in the register. Issued in Mannheim on 18 May 2026 NAME AND SIGNATURE Böttcher Judge-rapporteur

Key Holdings

• Withdrawal of requests is permitted under R. 265 RoP if no objections are raised by the claimant and defendant.
• Costs related to inspection orders are awarded only in exceptional cases.
• A public inspection order is not the appropriate mechanism to verify if a party to a license agreement has violated confidentiality; such matters should be resolved directly between the parties.
• Inspection orders are not intended for obtaining evidence of a possible breach of contract between private parties.

Tags

• Withdrawal
• Access to documents
• Confidentiality
• Costs
• Procedural