NOVAWELL v C-KORE SYSTEMS (CFI, 26 March 2024)

Date	26 March 2024
Court	CFI
Division	Paris (FR) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Registry reference	ORD_12088/2024
Parties	NOVAWELL v. C-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 26 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_397/2023, ORD_12088/2024), judge-rapporteur Lignières of the Paris Local Division set up a confidentiality club for the confidential information in the expert’s report of 5 February 2024, drawn up following the saisie ordered on 14 November 2023 at the request of C-Kore Systems Limited, proprietor of EP 2 265 793, against Novawell. The club consists only of the parties’ representatives and advisers, with no natural person from the parties themselves. The order accepts that the parties may jointly waive the minimum safeguard in Rule 262A.6 RoP.

Question

May a confidentiality club be composed without at least one natural person from each party, contrary to Rule 262A.6 RoP, where the parties so agree?

Decision

Yes. The parties proposed and then confirmed the club’s composition, including the absence of a natural person from each party. The judge-rapporteur held that although Rule 262A.6 RoP requires at least one natural person per party, the parties may exclude such access by mutual agreement, provided the right to a fair trial is not affected, which it is not here. The confidential information appears only in redacted form for persons outside the club. Only the panel and the club members see the full versions, as well as the saisie report of 11 December 2023. The order may be reviewed under Rule 333 RoP.

Key points for practice

Practical point: the presence of a natural person from each party in a confidentiality club is a safeguard the parties may waive by agreement, subject to the court’s control.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 58
Rules of Procedure: Rules 262A and 333
Directive (EU) 2016/943: Art. 9(3)
Case law cited: Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 4 March 2024

Prepared by Dhenne Avocats from the official decision, consulted on 10 October 2026. The database is updated every week, on Friday. Only the official text is authoritative.

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

defendantC-KORE SYSTEMS LIMITED5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantNOVAWELL4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Le cercle de confidentialité est limité aux représentants et conseils des parties, celles-ci ayant valablement renoncé, d'un commun accord, à la présence d'une personne physique de chaque partie.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 2 265 793 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Plant-e v Arkyne (CFI, 4 March 2024) cited in this record
LAMA FRANCE v HEWLETT-PACKARD DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (CFI, 19 December 2024) cites this decision
CEAD v BEGO Medical (CFI, 30 July 2024) cites this decision

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 2 265 793`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): C-KORE Systems v NOVAWELL (CFI, 29 January 2025) · C-KORE SYSTEMS v Novawell (CFI, 26 November 2024) · C-KORE SYSTEMS v NOVAWELL (CFI, 1 March 2024) · C-KORE SYSTEMS v NOVAWELL (CFI, 14 November 2023)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.