Ona Patents v Apple (CFI, 30 August 2024)
| Date | 30 August 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Registry reference | App_43001/2024 · ORD_43173/2024 |
| Parties | Apple 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.
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
- Practical point: a defendant may protect a non-infringement case resting on the absence of a functionality, provided it shows that the information is known only to a restricted circle.
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
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
Parties
- defendantOna Patents SL16 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantApple Retail France EURL10 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantApple Inc.15 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantApple GmbH10 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantApple Retail Germany B.V. & Co. KG11 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- claimantApple Distribution International Ltd.11 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 263 098mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 8 August 2024) cited in this record
- 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience (CFI, 11 March 2024) cited in this record
- Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 3 November 2023) cited in this record
- Apple Retail France EURL v Ona Patents (CFI, 6 May 2025) cites this decision
- Apple v Ona Patents (CFI, 12 February 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
| Publication | Role in the dispute | Family | Standard and declaration | Pool | Sources |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EP 2 263 098Positioning 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 recorded | not recorded | not recorded | Espacenet · 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 |
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.