CEAD v BEGO Medical (CFI, 30 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 30 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_367/2023, ACT_580198/2023, ORD_39244/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Paris Central Division dismissed the application by BEGO Medical, proprietor of EP 2 681 034 and defendant to the revocation action brought by CEAD and CEAD USA, to withhold the breakdown of its lawyers’ fees (exhibits ES8 and ES9) from the claimants, but granted confidentiality as against the public under Rule 262.2 RoP.

Question

May the breakdown of a party’s negotiated fees be withheld from the other side under Rule 262A RoP, or only from the public?

Decision

Restricting access requires a balancing exercise in which the right to be heard weighs heavily (paragraphs 1 to 3), the circle of persons with access must include at least one natural person from each party (paragraphs 5 and 6). The information, which arises from the litigation rather than ordinary business, is neither technical nor licensing material. Without a breakdown, the claimants cannot test whether the costs are reasonable and proportionate under Art. 69(1) UPCA (paragraphs 7 and 8). The risk of weakening BEGO’s position in settlement talks gives way to the right to be heard and to the establishment of the facts (paragraphs 9 and 10). An application under Rule 262A RoP implicitly includes one under Rule 262.2 RoP, which is subject to a lower threshold given the principle of public proceedings (Art. 45 UPCA), BEGO’s interest in keeping its negotiated fees private outweighs that of the public (paragraphs 11 to 13).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party filing a cost statement should expect the other side to see the breakdown, confidentiality being available only as against the public.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts. 45, 58, 69(1) and 76(2)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 104(k), 262.2 and 262A

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9, Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, Art. 47, European Convention on Human Rights, Art. 6(1)

Case law cited

Avago Technologies International Sales v Tesla Germany, Hamburg Local Division, 3 November 2023, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 23 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023), Plant-e v Arkyne, The Hague Local Division, 4 March 2024, Novawell v C-Kore Systems, Paris Local Division, 26 March 2024, FUJIFILM v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 March 2024, Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile, Milan Local Division, 6 May 2024, Aylo Premium, Mannheim Local Division, 22 July 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.