CA v Deutsche Telekom (CFI, 15 July 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a procedural order of 15 July 2026 (UPC_CFI_672/2026 and UPC_CFI_2175/2026, EP 1 934 794), the Düsseldorf Local Division ruled on the confidentiality request filed by Deutsche Telekom and two group companies with their statement of defence, in the action brought by CA, Inc. It protects turnover figures, infrastructure data and internal information on data collection, storage and access rights, but lifts the provisional protection granted on 17 June 2026 for customer names and information, which the customers themselves make public. The order is a reminder that information already in the public domain cannot be protected under Rule 262A RoP.

Question

Can the names of a defendant’s customers, which they publicly advertise themselves, and information on the internal organisation of its data be protected under Rule 262A RoP?

Decision

The request is admissible: a mere request under Rule 262.2 RoP does not restrict the other party’s use, but the formal requirements of Rule 262A.2 to 262A.4 RoP are met and the claimant was heard (paragraphs 5 to 8, with Art. 9 of Directive 2016/943 and Art. 58 UPCA). Turnover, infrastructure and the consequences of enforcement are not disputed (paragraph 10). Internal information on data collection and storage and access rights reveals internal structures and workflows not available to competitors and has economic value (paragraphs 11 and 12). Customer names and information, public and advertised by the customers themselves, warrant no protection (paragraph 13). Confidential and redacted versions must be filed within one week. Leave to appeal is not granted (paragraph 14).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: before seeking confidentiality for customer names, check that they do not already appear in those customers’ own public communications, or protection will be refused (paragraph 13).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.2 and 262A

Directive (EU) 2016/943

Art. 9(1) and (2)

Case law cited

Strabag v Swarco, Court of Appeal, 1 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_70/2025), EOFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 18 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_930/2025)

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.