Opens in a new tab

Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, ORD_60319/2024, 23 December 2024)

Date23 December 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_59980/2024 · ORD_60319/2024
PartiesPowerDeal SRL, Coenergia Srl a Socio Unico

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 23 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_336/2024), Presiding Judge Thomas, as judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, classified as confidential, in Maxeon Solar’s action for infringement of EP 3 065 184, the revenue, profit and sales figures of PowerDeal and Coenergia set out in the statement of defence and counterclaim for revocation of five defendants, together with Exhibits Aff3 and Aff4. The order admits a confidentiality request made after the documents were lodged, which is of direct practical interest.

Question

Is a confidentiality request that was not lodged together with the pleading, as Rule 262A.3 requires, admissible?

Decision

Yes. Although the formal requirements of Rule 262A.3 were not met, Rule 262.2 does not require the request to be made at the same time as the pleading. The request was therefore admissible (paragraph 2). The data reveal the profitability of the attacked products and the market position of the two companies, and the defendants explained in detail why they are neither generally known nor readily accessible: they are trade secrets (paragraph 3), protected on the basis of Article 9 of Directive 2016/943, Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262A (paragraph 1). The request did not seek to restrict the claimant’s access. Requests concerning public access (Rule 262.1(b)), the oral hearing and the reasons of the judgment were reserved (paragraph 5).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 58
Rules of Procedure
Rules 262 and 262A
Directive (EU) 2016/943
Art. 9(1) and (2)(a)
Case law cited
Hamburg Local Division, Avago International Sales v Tesla Germany, 3 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_54/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, 11 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023), Düsseldorf Local Division, Magna International France v Valeo Electrification, 21 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024), Düsseldorf Local Division, Valeo v Magna, 9 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024)

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

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 application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Les chiffres d'affaires, bénéfices et ventes de PowerDeal et Coenergia et les pièces Aff3 et Aff4 sont classés confidentiels, la demande tardive étant recevable au titre de la règle 262.2.
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

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 3 065 184
Trench process and structure for backside contact solar cells with polysilicon doped regions
recorded proprietor: Maxeon Solar Pte Ltd
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 11 other decision(s): Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 11 February 2026) · Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 29 July 2025) · Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 23 April 2025) · Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 14 April 2025) · Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 13 April 2025) · Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 19 February 2025) · Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 3 February 2025) · Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 21 January 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.