Opens in a new tab

Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 6 May 2024)

Date6 May 2024
CourtCFI
DivisionMilan (IT) Local Division
Type of actionApplication RoP262A
Registry referenceApp_21554/2024 · ORD_23384/2024
PartiesBhagat 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.

Contact the firm

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

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
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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

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

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 2 145 848
False twist texturing machine
recorded proprietor: Oerlikon Textile GmbH and Co KG
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 19 other decision(s): Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 4 November 2024) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 13 June 2023) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CoA, 9 December 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CoA, 30 October 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Himson Engineering (CFI, 9 September 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 29 July 2025) · Oerlikon Textile v Bhagat Textile Engineers (CFI, 9 May 2025) · Bhagat Textile Engineers v Oerlikon Textile (CFI, 20 February 2025)
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.