ASUSTeK Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, ORD_69253/2024, 28 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 28 April 2025 (no. 69253/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division set up the protection of confidential information filed by ASUSTeK in Ericsson’s infringement action based on EP 3 076 673 (UPC_CFI_319/2024) and in the counterclaim for revocation (UPC_CFI_728/2024). He refused the external-eyes-only regime sought by Ericsson and allowed access for one natural person per party. The order was partly set aside on appeal on 26 January 2026 as regards the third-party licences filed by Ericsson.

Question

May the Court impose, absent agreement between the parties, an external-eyes-only regime excluding anyone within the parties from access to confidential information?

Decision

The judge weighed the interest in secrecy against the right to an effective remedy and a fair trial (Art. 58 UPCA, Rule 262A RoP, Art. 9 of Directive 2016/943). Access must be limited to what is strictly necessary but include at least one natural person from each party (Rule 262A.6 RoP). An external-eyes-only regime is conceivable only exceptionally, where an actual and proven conflict with competition law exists, the burden of proof lying on the applicant (Arts. 20, 42(2) and 54 UPCA). As Ericsson offered only a statement of principle without concrete facts, and ASUS sought access for one person only, the request was refused. Access is reserved to the external representatives, the licensing experts and one natural person per party, under a mutual duty of confidentiality that survives the proceedings, with a penalty payment possible for each breach (Rule 354.3 RoP). Ericsson’s time limit for its reply was extended to two months from the order (Rule 29 RoP).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: negotiating a confidentiality club under the judge-rapporteur’s guidance can narrow the dispute to internal access, which in principle remains open to one person per party.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 20, 42(2), 48, 54 and 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 29, 262.2, 262A, 333 and 354.3

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9, Commission Communication 2020/C 242/01

Case law cited

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025, Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile, Milan Local Division, 6 May 2024, Düsseldorf Local Division, App_6761/2024, ACT_578607/2023

Related decisions

• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer, 26 January 2026, Court of Appeal order partly setting aside the regime for third-party licences.

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.