Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 6 May 2024)
| Date | 6 May 2024 |
|---|---|
| Court | CFI |
| Division | Milan (IT) Local Division |
| Type of action | Application RoP262A |
| Registry reference | App_21554/2024 · ORD_23384/2024 |
| Parties | Bhagat Textile Engineers v. Oerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG |
Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry
Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.
Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026
Our analysis
Summary
By an order of 6 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_241/2023, ACT_549585/2023, App_21554/2024, ORD_23384/2024), the Milan Local Division (P. Perrotti, A. Zana, C. Gillet), in the infringement action on EP 2 145 848 brought by Oerlikon Textile GmbH & Co KG against Bhagat Textile Engineers, restricted to the defendant’s lawyers alone access to confidential commercial information filed to substantiate costs ahead of an interim conference. The order accepts a confidentiality club with no natural person from the other side, where that party consents.
Question
May every natural person of the opposing party be excluded from the confidentiality club, with access limited to its lawyers, where that party does not object?
Decision
Bhagat’s failure to object amounted to consent. The panel reserved its own review of whether a fair trial is compromised and found that it was not (paragraph 3(a)). Rule 262A.6 RoP, which follows Art. 9(2) of Directive (EU) 2016/943, read with Art. 58 UPCA, does not preclude this approach, assessed case by case, all the more since trade secrets were only an ancillary issue here (paragraphs 3(b) and 3(c)). The redacted information (prices and contract terms negotiated with a third party) is confidential within Art. 58 UPCA, its disclosure to a competitor could harm Oerlikon and distort competition, whereas access by the lawyers is enough to safeguard the rights of the defence (paragraph 3(d)). Use of the information is confined to these proceedings and costs follow the main action.
Key points for practice
- Practical point: a party which does not oppose a lawyers-only confidentiality request in effect waives access by a natural person, the Milan Local Division accepts that waiver subject to fair trial.
Provisions applied
- Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
- Art. 58
- Rules of Procedure
- Rule 262A
- Directive (EU) 2016/943
- Art. 9(2)
- Case law cited
- The Hague Local Division, UPC_CFI_239/2023, App_589842/2023
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.
Going further
Lexicon: Confidentiality club.
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
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
Parties
- claimantBhagat Textile Engineers9 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
- defendantOerlikon Textile GmbH & CO KG18 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
What the record states
- Nature of the act
- Application RoP262A
- Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
- Les informations caviardées sont confidentielles et seuls les avocats de Bhagat y ont accès, la partie elle-même étant exclue, avec son accord tacite.
- 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
EP 2 145 848mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- ASUSTeK Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, ORD_69253/2024, 28 April 2025) cites this decision
- ASUSTeK Computer v Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (CFI, ORD_20078/2025, 28 April 2025) cites this decision
- CEAD v BEGO Medical (CFI, 30 July 2024) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.