Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies (CFI, 4 March 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 4 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_239/2023, App_589842/2023), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division granted the confidentiality application of Plant-e, proprietor of EP 2 137 782, in its dispute with Arkyne Technologies (referred to as « Bioo » in the order). The redacted financial information, filed in response to an application for security for costs under Rule 158 RoP, is accessible only to the defendant’s representatives and may be used only for that application. The order accepts access restricted to counsel, without any natural person of the other party, where the parties so agree.

Question

May non-public financial information be protected under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP by limiting access to the other party’s representatives only?

Decision

The information (identity and contributions of investors, sales forecasts) is not relevant to the merits and serves only to rebut the argument that Plant-e could not cover the defendant’s costs (paragraph 10). Being non-public financial data exchanged between small competing companies, its disclosure to an employee of the defendant would risk distorting competition, while withholding it does not harm the defence (paragraph 11). The judge noted that it is unclear whether Rule 262A.6 RoP always requires access for a natural person of each party and that, in any event, the parties may waive it by agreement provided a fair trial is ensured (paragraphs 12 and 13). In line with the parties’ agreement, access was limited to the representatives, without any penalty, and use to the Rule 158 application, costs will follow those of the main proceedings (paragraphs 14 and 15 and operative part).

Key points for practice

• Access restricted to counsel (« attorneys’ eyes only ») may be ordered where the parties agree, even though Rule 262A.6 RoP in principle provides for access by one natural person per party (paragraphs 12 and 13).
• Use of the protected information may be confined to the procedural application for which it was filed (paragraph 15).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 42(2), 58 and 60(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 158, 262A.1 and 262A.6

Directive (EU) 2016/943 on trade secrets

Art. 9(2)

Related decisions

• Plant-e v Arkyne, 13 February 2024, earlier order dismissing the Rule 158 application.

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.