UPC_CFI_688/2025 – Med-El v Zhejiang
- Court
- Local Division Hamburg
- Date
- Outcome
- Granted
- Sector
- Other
- Decision Type
- PROCEDURAL
Expert Commentary
Settlement Facts 1. The parties settled after Med-El issued its Statement of Claim for infringement. 2. The parties asked for confirmation of the settlement and that the details of the settlement remain confidential. The Court 1. The Court confirmed the settlement and stated that such confirmed settlement may be enforced as a final decision of the Court. 2. The Court states that the settlement contains confidential information and orders that only the redacted version will be entered in the Register. 3. The Court decides that it will not decide on the confidentiality request based on R. 262.2 RoP, until a request to access the file is made by a member of the public. Comment 1. The parties had asked for a decision on R. 262 RoP. The Court refuses, referring to two Court of Appeal decisions. I quite frankly do not read in these decisions that the Court of Appeal rules that the Court of First Instance cannot grant such requests. 2. The Court rules that it will decide upon such request if a member of the public lodges a request under R. 262.1(b) RoP. To me, this seems very unpractical. The Court in this decision already decides that certain information is confidential, and that only the redacted version will be put in the Register. Once a member of the public asks for access, the Court now wants the parties to ask for confidentiality again under R 262.2 RoP. A member of the public can then challenge the confidentiality (R. 262.3 RoP). This is unpractical. The Court should have granted the R. 262.2 RoP request and if a member of the public wants more than the redacted version they should lodge an order under R. 262.3 RoP. 3. To make it even more complicated: I think that the parties did not have to lodge a request under R. 262.2 RoP at all. 4. This is about confirmation of a settlement. In my view, it is for the parties to decide what they want to keep confidential. This may also be other information than confidential information. 5. In my opinion, R. 365.2 RoP is a lex specialis as it relates to confidentiality particularly in the context of settlements. Parties can request that “details of the settlement are confidential”. The Court can refuse and then the parties may decide not to register the agreement. If granted, however, the parties should be allowed to assume that the register only contains a redacted version. Third parties should not be able to obtain the confidential details (for instance via R. 262.3 RoP). 6. If parties cannot keep details confidential and are not safeguarded against third parties getting access, then registering a settlement becomes unattractive. Under those circumstances, claimants might avoid settlements, e.g. wanting a judgment instead. In my opinion therefore, R. 365.2 RoP should be read as a lex specialis which allows you to keep details confidential, and one should not be able to challenge that confidentiality.
Full Decision Text
Hamburg - Local Division UPC_CFI_688/2025 Decision of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court delivered on 30 September 2025 concerning a confirmation of a settlement CLAIMANT: MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Represented by Gesellschaft m.b.H. Anna-Katharina Dr. Friese-Okoro - Fürstenweg 77a - 6020 - Innsbruck – AT DEFENDANTS: 1. Zhejiang Nurotron Biotechnology Co., Ltd. Represented by (Defendant 1) - No. 17 Longtan Road Cangqian Street, Adrián Crespo Velasco Yuhang District, - 0000 - Hangzhou City – CN 2. Nurotron Global SARL Represented by (Defendant 2) - 7 Rue des Torterelles, 40510 Adrián Crespo Velasco Seignosse, France PATENT AT ISSUE Patent no. Proprietor/s EP 4 074 373 MED−EL Elektromedizinische Geräte Gesellscha m.b.H. 1 PANEL Panel of the Hamburg Local Division DECIDING JUDGES This decision was issued by the presiding judge Sabine Klepsch, the legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur Stefan Johansson and the legally qualified judge Dr. Stefan Schilling. LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS English SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS Infringement action – Confirmation by the Court of a settlement, R. 365 RoP SUMMARY OF FACTS AND PARTIES’ REQUESTS 1. The Claimant has initiated infringement proceedings against the Defendants, based on alleged infringements of EP 4 074 373. Thereafter, the Parties have concluded the proceedings by way of settlement. 2. The Parties have requested a. that the Court issue a decision confirming the settlement and that the decision may be enforced as final decision of the Court (Art. 79 UPCA, R. 365.1 RoP), b. that the details of the settlement shall remain confidential in accordance with the settlement agreement (R. 365.2 RoP), and c. that no cost decision shall be made. 3. The Claimant has also submitted an application in accordance with R. 262.2 RoP, requesting that the Court shall order – in accordance with R. 262.2, 365,2 RoP – that the details of the settlement agreement dated 10 September 2025 between the parties shall be treated confidential, and that the non-redacted copy of the settlement agreement dated 10 September 2025 between the parties shall not be published or otherwise made available to the public. REASONS FOR THE DECISION 4. If requested by the parties, the Court shall – according to R. 365 RoP – confirm the settlement that they have reached. Such a decision may be enforced as a final decision of the Court and shall be entered into the register. 5. At the request of the parties, the Court may – according to R. 365.2 and 365.3 RoP – order that details of the settlement are confidential and that the decision with only a redacted version of the settlement shall be entered into the register. 6. In this case, the settlement agreement contains confidential information. Hence, the conditions for confirming the settlement and to include the decision with only the redacted version of the settlement in the register are fulfilled. 2 7. As confirmed by the Court of Appeal in inter alia cases CoA_120/2025 and CoA_46/2025, the Court shall not decide on the R. 262.2 RoP request unless/until a R. 262.1(b) RoP request has been made by a member of the public. 8. As the parties have agreed that the Court shall not issue an order regarding costs in these proceedings, the Court will refrain from doing so. DECISION I. At the request of the Parties, the Court confirms, pursuant to R. 365.1 RoP, that the Parties have concluded the following Settlement Agreement: 3 4 5 II. This decision including only the redacted version of the settlement shall be entered on the register. Hence, the unredacted version of the decision shall remain confidential. III. This decision is enforceable as a final decision of the Court. 6 Issued in Hamburg on 30 September 2025 SIGNATURES Digital unterschrieben Sabine Maria von Sabine Maria Klepsch Klepsch Datum: 2025.09.30 11:55:10 +02'00' Presiding judge Sabine Klepsch Digitally signed by Stefan Erik Stefan Erik Johansson Johansson Date: 2025.09.30 12:06:19 +02'00' Judge-rapporteur Stefan Johansson Stefan Digital unterschrieben von Stefan Schilling Schilling Datum: 2025.09.30 12:03:17 +02'00' Legally qualified judge Dr. Stefan Schilling Sarah Digital signiert von Sarah Brecht DN: cn=Sarah Brecht, c=DE, email=sarah.brecht@lg.justiz.hamburg.de Brecht Datum: 2025.09.30 12:19:15 +02'00' For the sub-registry INFORMATION ABOUT APPEAL An appeal against the present Decision may be lodged at the Court of Appeal, by any party which has been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions, within two months of the date of notification (Art. 73(1) UPCA, R. 220.1(a), 224.1(a) RoP). INFORMATION ABOUT ENFORCEMENT (RULE 68(1) RGR) The decision may be enforced as a final decision of the Court, Art. 79 UPCA, Art. 82 UPCA, R. 118.8 RoP, R. 354 RoP. An authentic copy of the enforceable decision will be issued by the Deputy- Registrar upon request of the enforcing party, R. 69 RegR. 7
Key Holdings
- Settlement confirmed and enforceable as final decision.
- Only redacted version entered in Register due to confidential info.
- Decision on R. 262.2 confidentiality deferred until public access request is made.
Tags
- Confidentiality
- Public Access
- Registration
- Settlement