Opens in a new tab

Ona Patents v Apple (CFI, 30 August 2024)

Date30 August 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionDüsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_43001/2024 · ORD_43173/2024
PartiesApple Retail France EURL, Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd., Apple GmbH, Apple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG v. Ona Patents SL

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 order of 30 August 2024 (UPC_CFI_99/2024, ACT_11910/2024, App_43001/2024), the presiding judge and judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division (Thomas) granted the confidentiality request filed by Apple Inc. and four other Apple companies, defendants in the infringement action on EP 2 263 098 brought by Ona Patents. The order holds that a negative fact, namely that a product lacks a functionality, may be confidential information.

Question

May profit margins and technical information on the accused products, including the fact that a product does not support a functionality, be protected under Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP?

Decision

Yes. The request is admissible under Art. 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/943 and Art. 58 UPCA, and the formal requirements of Rule 262A RoP are met, the claimant having been heard without disputing the substance. Non-public margin data is confidential, since figures on online portals are not validated by the defendants. The names of staff with access to the data are protected too. Technical information known only to the engineers concerned is protected, as a negative fact does not in itself rule out confidentiality. Access is limited to three named lawyers and their teams and to Ona’s chief executive, following the principles of the order of 8 August 2024, the request for access by party experts remains to be decided.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 58
Rules of Procedure
Rules 262.2 and 262A
Directive (EU) 2016/943
Art. 9(1) and (2)(a)
Case law cited
Avago Technologies International v Tesla Germany, Hamburg Local Division, 3 November 2023, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 March 2024, Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics, Düsseldorf Local Division, 8 August 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: Confidentiality club.

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
Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Les marges bénéficiaires et les informations techniques sur les produits Apple sont déclarées confidentielles, l'accès étant réservé à trois avocats nommés, à leurs équipes et au dirigeant d'Ona.
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 2 263 098
Positioning of mobile objects based on mutually transmitted signals
recorded proprietor: Ekahau Oy
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 21 other decision(s): Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 15 January 2026) · Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 14 October 2025) · Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 13 October 2025) · Ona Patents v Apple (CFI, 17 September 2025) · Ona Patents v Apple (CFI, 11 September 2025) · Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 10 September 2025) · Ona Patents v Apple (CFI, 5 September 2025) · Ona Patents v Google Commerce (CFI, 1 August 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.