Advanced Standard Communication v Motorola Mobility (CFI, 18 June 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In the action for infringement of EP 3 016 464 brought by Advanced Standard Communication LLC against Motorola Mobility LLC and three other defendants, the judge-rapporteur of the Munich Local Division grants Rule 262A protection for information in the rejoinder on the FRAND objection and in the request for production of documents of 3 June 2026, including licence agreements. He limits access to the highly confidential information to one external expert identified by name, rather than to his whole team. The order is relevant to FRAND litigation, where parties routinely instruct economic consultancies.

Question

Can a party obtain access for an entire consultancy team to highly confidential information produced by its opponent?

Decision

The judge-rapporteur finds that the defendants’ interest in protecting their trade secrets prevails, the claimant not disputing their confidential nature (paragraphs 9 to 13). Rule 262A.6 requires access to be limited to what is necessary, having regard to each person’s role in the proceedings, the relevance of the information to that role and that person’s trustworthiness. Such persons need not be employees or representatives under Art. 48 UPCA (paragraph 16). External experts may be consulted, but their number may not be unlimited or indeterminable: they must be known by name, or at least identifiable (paragraph 18). In the absence of any reason for wider access, it is confined to the named expert and at most two members of his team, who may see the information only once named and authorised by a further order (paragraphs 19 to 23). Any culpable breach may attract a penalty payment of up to EUR 250,000 per infringement.

Key points for practice

• A confidentiality club open to an external expert’s « team » is refused: each individual must be identified and authorised (paragraphs 18 and 23).
• The number of persons admitted follows the need shown by the party seeking access (paragraphs 19 to 22).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 48 and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262 and 262A

Case law cited

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025, Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026, Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026, DISH v AYLO, Mannheim Local Division, 3 July 2024, NEC v TCL, Munich Local Division, 14 August 2024, UPC_CFI_498/2023, Qiagen v bioMérieux, Düsseldorf Local Division, 15 July 2025

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.