Opens in a new tab

Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 3 November 2023)

Date3 November 2023
CourtCFI
DivisionHamburg (DE) Local Division
Type of actionInfringement Action
Case number(s)UPC_CFI_54/2023
Registry referenceORD_577703/2023 · UPC_CFI_54/2023
PartiesAvago Technologies International Sales Pte. Limited v. Tesla Germany GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

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 3 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_54/2023, App_577703/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Hamburg Local Division finally decided the confidentiality application under Rule 262A RoP of Tesla Germany and Tesla Manufacturing Brandenburg, defendants in Avago Technologies International Sales’ infringement action on EP 1 612 910. He protected as trade secrets the technical implementation of the attacked embodiment and the purchase prices of components, but refused protection for a letter already sent without restriction to the claimant’s counsel and for sales forecasts derived from public data. Access is limited to the claimant’s counsel and three named persons.

Question

Which information in the statement of defence amounts to trade secrets justifying restricted access as against the opposing party, and who should have access?

Decision

It suffices that a trade secret is more likely than not. The public datasheet of a similar chip does not disclose the defendants’ own implementation. The purchase prices at issue concern the attacked control components, and the claimant had not argued that they were public. By contrast, a letter handed without restriction to the claimant’s counsel cannot be kept confidential from the claimant, though protection against third parties remains available (Rule 262.2 RoP), and forecasts derived from public data are not secret. The circle of access must be limited to what is necessary while including at least one natural person for each party (Rule 262A.6 RoP), employees of a group company may be included.

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 58
Rules of Procedure
Rules 220.1, 262.2 and 262A
Other provisions
Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of trade secrets, Art. 9

Related decisions

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.


Decisions in the same proceedings

Going further

Lexicon: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

  • UPC_CFI_54/2023 official number

Follow this case

Parties

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

  1. 22 August 2023 Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 22 August 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_54/2023

    Le juge rapporteur rejette la demande de prorogation du délai de défense, la coordination avec des fournisseurs non européens et les congés n'étant pas des motifs suffisants.

  2. 4 October 2023 Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 4 October 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_54/2023

    Le juge rapporteur réserve provisoirement l'accès aux versions confidentielles du mémoire en défense et de deux pièces au seul représentant de la demanderesse, jusqu'à l'ordonnance définitive de confidentialité.

  3. 3 November 2023 Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 3 November 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_54/2023
  4. 28 November 2023 Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 28 November 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_54/2023

    Le délai de réplique court du 8 novembre 2023, date de clôture de la procédure de confidentialité sur le mémoire en défense. Les défenderesses sont invitées à se prononcer sur la prorogation du délai de réponse à la demande reconventionnelle.

  5. 5 December 2023 Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 5 December 2023) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_54/2023

    Le délai de réponse à la demande reconventionnelle en nullité court, comme le délai de réplique, du 8 novembre 2023, date de clôture de la procédure de confidentialité sur le mémoire en défense.

  6. 26 August 2024 Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 26 August 2024) Infringement Action · UPC_CFI_54/2023

    L’action en contrefaçon est rejetée, Avago n’établissant pas que Tesla reproduit la caractéristique d’arbitrage de la revendication 1 maintenue, la demande reconventionnelle est partiellement accueillie : le brevet est annulé au-delà de la revendication 1 dans la version de la requête subsidiaire 1, la revendication 3 …

What the record states

Nature of the act
Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
La mise en œuvre technique du mode de réalisation litigieux et les prix d'achat des composants sont protégés comme secrets d'affaires, l'accès étant réservé aux avocats et à trois personnes désignées. La protection est refusée pour une lettre déjà communiquée sans réserve et pour des prévisions issues de données publiques.
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 1 612 910
On-board power supply monitor and power control system
recorded proprietor: Broadcom Corp		Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 7 other decision(s): Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CoA, 15 Januar · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 26 August · Tesla Germany v Avago Technologies International Sales (CFI, 2 April 2 · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 5 Decembe · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 28 Novemb · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 4 October · Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany (CFI, 22 August		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.