CA v Deutsche Telekom (CFI, 6 August 2026)

Date	6 August 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Munich (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Infringement Action
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_515/2026
Registry reference	UPC-CFI-0000515/2026
Parties	CA, Inc. v. Deutsche Telekom AG, Telekom Deutschland GmbH

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

In a decision of 29 July 2026, given in infringement action UPC_CFI_515/2026 and counterclaim UPC_CFI_1797/2026 (EP 1 955 151), the panel of the Munich Local Division rejects CA, Inc.’s application for review (Rule 333.1 RoP) of the judge-rapporteur’s confidentiality order of 22 June 2026 and upholds that order. Deutsche Telekom AG and Telekom Deutschland GmbH had filed, under the protection of Rule 262A RoP, an excerpt from a technical document (exhibit B5). The decision sets a useful marker: the party subject to the restriction is not entitled to the complete source document.

Question

Does an excerpt filed under Rule 262A RoP satisfy the requirement to provide the unredacted document under Rule 262A.3 RoP, or may the other party demand the full source document?

Decision

The application is admissible but unfounded (paragraph 9). The confidentiality request concerns the excerpt filed, not the whole document, which is not part of the proceedings (paragraphs 11 and 12). The « unredacted » document in Rule 262A.3 RoP is the one containing the information to be protected, and an excerpt may qualify (paragraph 14). The rule only requires disclosure of the protected information so that the other party can comment, not of the entire source document (paragraph 15), and CA does not show why it needs the latter (paragraphs 16 and 17). Equality of arms is not infringed, each party being responsible for its own submissions (paragraphs 18 and 19). To obtain the full document, a request for production under Rule 190 RoP appears better suited (paragraph 21). Leave to appeal is refused (paragraph 25).

Key points for practice

Practical point: a party seeking the full text of a document of which only an excerpt was filed should apply under Rule 190 RoP rather than challenge the confidentiality order (paragraphs 15 and 21).

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rules 190, 220.3, 262A.1, 262A.3, 262A.4, 333.1 and 333.3

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: Patent infringement action.

Publications by Matthieu Dhenne: Pleading the Long Arm: What a UPC Statement of Claim Must Carry Beyond Jurisdiction (Kluwer Patent Blog).

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

UPC_CFI_515/2026 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantCA, Inc.3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantDeutsche Telekom AG3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantTelekom Deutschland GmbH3 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Infringement Action
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La formation rejette la demande de réexamen et maintient l’ordonnance de confidentialité : l’extrait produit suffit au regard de la règle 262A.3, sans communication du document source complet.
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 1 955 151 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 1 955 151`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.