Brita v Wessper (CFI, 27 May 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 27 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_779/2024), the presiding judge of the Düsseldorf Local Division, acting as judge-rapporteur, rejected applications by Wessper Sp. z o.o. for protection of the confidentiality of the information it must provide to Brita SE under the decision of 16 April 2026 finding indirect infringement of EP 1 748 830. The order matters for the enforcement of orders to provide information: protection should in principle be sought in the main proceedings.

Question

Can a party ordered to provide information and supporting documents obtain confidentiality measures afterwards, under Rule 262A RoP applied by analogy and Rule 262.2 RoP, for material it hands over outside the proceedings?

Decision

No. On its wording, Rule 262A.1 RoP covers information contained in the parties’ written pleadings, not information the defendant discloses in compliance with an order (paragraphs 9 and 10). Application by analogy is conceivable, but a defendant who can reasonably foresee that the orders sought will force it to disclose confidential information should raise the matter in the main proceedings, as the Court of Appeal indicated in EOFLOW v Insulet and Kodak v Fujifilm (paragraph 11). A later application is not excluded, but it must explain why it was not made earlier (paragraph 12). Wessper gave no such explanation, although the orders it relied on predated the oral hearing (paragraph 13). Finally, information provided out of court is not on the court file, so an order under Rule 262.2 RoP would be purely hypothetical (paragraph 14).

Key points for practice

• A defendant facing an order to provide information should apply for confidentiality protection before the main proceedings close.
• Practical point: a late application must explain the delay in concrete terms, or it will be rejected without any review of whether the information is confidential.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.2 and 262A.1

Case law cited

EOFLOW v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 29 January 2026, Kodak v Fujifilm, Court of Appeal, 14 October 2025, Canon v Katun, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 April 2026

Related decisions

• Brita SE v Wessper Sp. z o.o., 16 April 2026, decision on the merits ordering the information to be provided.

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.