ASUSTeK Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, ORD_20078/2025, 28 April 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 28 April 2025 (ORD_20073/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division ruled on the protection of confidential information filed by ASUSTeK in Ericsson’s infringement action UPC_CFI_318/2024 and in the counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_730/2024. As in the order given the same day in the parallel action, she refused an external-eyes-only regime and allowed access for one natural person per party. The text refers to patent EP 3 076 673 and once to case number UPC_CFI_728/2024. The Court of Appeal partly set the regime aside 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 interest in secrecy is weighed against the right to an effective defence and a fair trial. Access is limited to a small circle including at least one natural person per party (Art. 58 UPCA, Rule 262A.6 RoP). Following the Court of Appeal, that person need not be an employee or a representative under Art. 48 UPCA. An external-eyes-only regime is exceptional: it requires prior agreement or an actual and proven risk of conflict with competition law, which the applicant must prove (Art. 54 UPCA). Since Ericsson’s argument remained general and the risk was found extremely limited, ASUS seeking access for one person only, the request was refused. The confidentiality club follows the parties’ agreement, with a mutual duty of secrecy surviving the proceedings and a penalty payment possible for each breach (Rule 354.3 RoP), the Rule 29 time limit runs from the order, Ericsson’s pleadings being due on 28 June 2025.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a request for an external-eyes-only regime must be backed by concrete facts showing a competition risk, otherwise access for one person per party stands.

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

• ASUSTeK Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, 28 April 2025, parallel order in action UPC_CFI_319/2024.
• Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson v ASUSTeK Computer, 26 January 2026, Court of Appeal order in appeal UPC_CoA_631/2025.

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.