Apple v Ona Patents (CFI, 12 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 30 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 12 February 2025, the Düsseldorf Local Division organises the protection of confidential information in the dispute between Ona Patents and the Apple companies over EP 2 263 098 B1. It classifies as confidential passages of the statement of defence and several exhibits, limits access to three named representatives, their team and the claimant’s chief executive, and backs the obligation with a penalty payment in case of culpable breach.

Facts and procedure

Ona Patents SL is suing the Apple companies before the Düsseldorf Local Division. The defendants seek protection for information contained in the statement of defence filed on 27 January 2024 and highlighted in grey, in exhibits BP 28 to BP 32, and in the unredacted version of the reply to the defence to the counterclaim and to the application to amend.

The applicable law

The order rests on Article 58 of the Agreement on a Unified Patent Court, read with Rule 262.2 of the Rules of Procedure, which allows access to confidential information to be restricted to a defined circle of persons.

Question

Which information was to be classified as confidential, and to whom was access to be restricted on the claimant’s side?

Decision

The highlighted passages of the statement of defence, exhibits BP 28 to BP 32 and the information identified in the unredacted reply are classified as confidential. On the claimant’s side, access is limited to three named lawyers and the members of their team actively involved in the proceedings, including other lawyers, patent attorneys and support staff, as well as the claimant’s chief executive. The obligation does not cover information the receiving party lawfully obtains from another source that is not bound by secrecy towards the defendants. Any culpable breach exposes the party to a penalty payment set case by case, the named representatives being liable for breaches by their team.

Key points for practice

• The confidentiality club is defined by named persons rather than by roles, which means the team has to be anticipated when the application is made.
• Extending access to team members comes with the personal liability of the named lawyers in case of breach.
• The carve-out for information lawfully obtained from another source must be expressly preserved, failing which the protection reaches beyond its purpose.
• The penalty payment is announced in the order itself, which gives the confidentiality club an immediately available sanction.

Provisions applied

UPC Agreement

Article 58

Rules of Procedure

Rule 262.2

Only the official text is authentic.