UPC_CFI_1034/2025; UPC_CFI_931/2026 – Yangtze v Micron
- Court
- Local Division Düsseldorf
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Electronics/SEP
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Protection of confidential information Facts 1. The Defendant submitted an application in accordance with R. 262.A regarding certain economic aspects of its defence (relating to turnover of allegedly infringing products). 2. The Claimant did not contest these arguments, but pointed out that the Defendants had disclosed an estimated amount and, if the figure falls within this range, it cannot be considered confidential business information. The JR 1. listed what constitutes confidential information, and concluded that the conditions of R. 262A RoP are met. As the Defendant did not object to the Claimant’s list of four individuals, there was no reason to deny these individuals access. 2. The JR granted the request. Comment Although I thought that the idea was for the non-German judge to act as JR to divide the workload more effectively in this busy Division, I do not think this applies in this case!
Full Decision Text
Düsseldorf Local Division UPC CFI 1034/2025 UPC CFI 931/2026 Procedural Order of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued on 1 April 2026 concerning EP 3 909 047 **CLAIMANT:** Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd., No.88 Weilai 3rd Road, East Lake High-tech Development Zone, Wuhan, Hubei 430000, China represented by: Attorney-at-law Oliver Jan Jüngst, Attorney-at-law Lucas Brons, Bird & Bird LLP, Carl-Theodor-Straße 6, 40213 Düsseldorf, Germany electronic address for service: oliver.jan.juengst@twobirds.com participating: Patent Attorney Dr. Felix Landry, Patent Attorney Leonard Lotz, Bird & Bird LLP, Am Sandtorkai 50, 20457 Hamburg, Germany **DEFENDANTS:** 1. Micron Technology, Inc., 8000 South Federal Way Boise, Idaho 83707-0006, USA 2. Micron Europe Ltd., Venture House 2 Arlington Square, Downshire Way, Bracknell, Berkshire, RG12 1WA, United Kingdom 3. Micron Semiconductor (Deutschland) GmbH, Leopoldstrasse 250 B, 80807 München, Germany 4. Micron Semiconductor France SAS, Immeuble Iliade, 23 Avenue Carnot, 91300 Massy, France represented by: Attorney-at-law Prof Dr Tilman Müller-Stoy, Attorney-at-law Dr Jan Bösing, Patent Attorney Tobias Kaufmann, Patent Attorney Dr Christian Haupt, Bardehle Pagenberg, Prinzregentenplatz 7, 81675 München, Germany **PATENT IN SUIT:** European Patent n° 3 909 047 **PANEL/DIVSION:** Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf **DECIDING JUDGES:** The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur. **LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS:** English **SUBJECT:** R. 262A RoP – Protection of confidential information **GROUNDS FOR THE ORDER:** Pursuant to R. 262A RoP, a party may make an Application to the Court for an order that certain information contained in its pleadings or the collection and use of evidence in proceedings may be restricted or prohibited or that access to such information or evidence be restricted to specific persons. The classification of information as a trade secret requires that (a) the information is not, as a body or in the precise configuration and assembly of its components, generally known among or readily accessible to persons within the circles that normally deal with the kind of information in question; (b) the information has commercial value because it is secret; and (c) the information has been subject to reasonable steps under the circumstances, by the person lawfully in control of the information, to keep it secret (UPC CoA 930/2025, Order of 18 March 2026, mn. 17-19 - EoFlow v. Insulet). Based on these principles, the conditions for the R. 262A RoP-order to protect confidential information sought by the Defendants are met. a) The formal requirements of R. 262A.2 and .3 RoP were complied with. The Claimant's representatives were also heard before the confidentiality order was issued, as required by R. 262A.4 RoP. They made use of the opportunity to submit observations. b) The Claimant has not substantially disputed that the information contained in the passages marked in gray in the Statement of Defence and the Counterclaim for Revocation and Exhibit BP 6 constitutes confidential information. According to the Defendants, the information considered as confidential contains information on the estimated gross profit that the Defendants will achieve in 2026 with direct sales of the attacked embodiments to Germany and France. Defendants state that this information is of economic value, as it would be of interest for Defendants’ competitors and customers to learn Defendants’ profit estimates and therefore to evaluate Defendants’ market position. The information provided is neither publicly known nor readily available and is treaded confidentially by the Defendants. Furthermore, the Defendants point out that it is also not publicly known what the current cross profit numbers of the Defendants are and what gross profit numbers Defendants are expecting for 2026. This information is strategic financial information of economic value that is also not accessible to Defendants’ competitors and the disclosure of which would allow conclusions to be drawn about Defendants’ profit margins and marketing strategies. 3. The Claimant did not contest these arguments, which justify the classification of the information as confidential. Instead, the Claimant has merely pointed out that the Defendants themselves disclosed that the estimated figures amount “more than EUR 13.000.000”. Therefore, the Claimant believes that “in the likely event that the estimated figure marked as confidential by the Defendants falls anywhere within the region of EUR 13.000.000, it cannot reasonably characterized as confidential business information”. However, as the Defendants correctly pointed out, this submission cannot successfully challenge the confidential nature of the information that has been classified as such by the Defendants. The precise gross profit estimate provided by the Defendants is neither publicly known nor accessible, a fact that the Claimant's submission has not called into question. c) Pursuant to R. 262A.6 RoP, the group of authorised parties must include at least one natural person of the party concerned. This applies in any event unless, as here, the parties have not agreed otherwise. In the first instance, only the party whose access is to be restricted can assess how many people need access in order to exercise its rights effectively. Similarly, only the party concerned is in a position to identify the individuals concerned and has insight into the necessary internal processes. Once the party has exercised its right of proposal on this basis, it is up to the party claiming confidentiality to raise specific objections in a second step. It is not sufficient for the party to object to the proposal in general terms. If the party in question objects to the proposed number of natural persons, it is rather up to that party to explain why the protection of the information for which confidentiality is requested would be jeopardised by the proposed person in particular, despite the confidentiality obligations that also exist vis-à-via the authorised users. On the other hand, if that party objects to the number of persons proposed, it is up to that party to explain in concrete terms why its rights would be compromised by the proposed number of natural persons (UPC CFI 336/2024 (LD Düsseldorf), Order of 23 December 2024, p. 4 – Maxeon Solar v. Aiko). The Claimant has made a submission and named four employees for whom it seeks access. As the Defendants’ did not object, there is no reason to deny these individuals access to the information classified as confidential.
Key Holdings
- Applications for protection of confidential information under R. 262A RoP are granted if the conditions are met, particularly for economic aspects of a defence.
- If a party has previously disclosed an estimated range for a figure, the specific figure might not be considered confidential business information if it falls within that range.
- Access to confidential information can be granted to a limited list of individuals if the opposing party does not object to the list.
Tags
- Confidentiality
- Trade Secrets
- Procedural