AYLO FREESITES v DISH (CFI, 3 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 3 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_471/2023, ACT_594191/2023, ORD_33986/2024, App_26934/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division (D. A. Böttcher), in the infringement action on EP 2 479 680 brought by DISH Technologies L.L.C. and Sling TV L.L.C. against AYLO PREMIUM LTD and other companies, partly granted three defendants’ application for confidentiality of the video streaming process described in their Statement of Defence and in a written witness statement (Annex BPV 5). The order sets benchmarks for the circle of persons given access.

Question

How many and which persons on the claimants’ side may access the protected information, must their UPC representatives be named and limited in number, and may their lawyers in parallel English proceedings have access?

Decision

The circle of access results from balancing the right to be heard against the interest in protection. It includes at least one natural person per party and its representatives (Rule 262A.6 RoP). Three natural persons are allowed in a technically complex case. The technical proximity of the persons named to the patent, or their work in filing and enforcing patents, does not disqualify them, since the risk of misuse is met by the purpose limitation and the penalty. Representatives within Art. 48(1) and (2) UPCA, bound by the Code of Conduct (Rule 290.2 RoP), need not be named or limited in number. External auxiliaries, by contrast, must be designated in advance. Access for the representatives in the parallel proceedings before the High Court in London is refused (Rule 262A.5 RoP): the two proceedings are independent and concern different territories. The information will not be passed on before 10 July 2024, and until then the defendants may withdraw the unredacted versions.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: UPC representatives and their internal staff have access without being named, but lawyers in parallel foreign proceedings do not gain access merely because a representative is common to both.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 48(1) and (2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262A and 290.2

Case law cited

Mannheim Local Division, 21 March 2024, UPC_CFI_359/2023, Düsseldorf Local Division, UPC_CFI_355/2023, ORD_7096/2024, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 March 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.