Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp (CFI, 18 February 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a preliminary procedural order of 18 February 2026, given in infringement action UPC_CFI_466/2025 and counterclaim for revocation UPC_CFI_869/2025 concerning EP 3 805 415, Judge-rapporteur Zhilova of the Düsseldorf Local Division protected under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262A information of Zapp AG and Zapp Precision Metals: exchanges with a raw material supplier, an internal test report, presentations to a potential customer and a written witness statement. Above all, she settled the access group on Dai Nippon Printing’s side, between the two employees proposed by the defendants and the ten people named by the claimant.

Question

How many people on the other side, and which ones, should have access to confidential information where the case requires a large team and foreign counsel?

Decision

Protected secrets cover technical know-how as well as commercial data, echoing Article 9 of Directive (EU) 2016/943 (paragraphs 5 and 6). The formal requirements of Rule 262A.2 and 262A.3 were met and the claimant was heard (paragraph 7). As the case calls for a large team on both sides, access was granted to four of the ten employees named, chosen according to the order proposed and their roles, and to two of the six lawyers and patent attorneys of the Japanese firm Kyowa (paragraphs 8 and 9). Professional interpreters and experts need not be named in advance, as they are bound to secrecy by their profession, but the claimant may only use such professionals (paragraph 10). The operative part classifies as confidential paragraphs 303 to 306, 316, 317 and 324 of the corrected rejoinder and six exhibits, limits access to the representatives and their staff, experts and interpreters and the six named individuals, keeps the confidentiality obligation in force after the proceedings and provides for a penalty payment for culpable breach.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: the division settled on an access group between the parties’ proposals, taking account of the claimant’s order of priority, it pays to rank the individuals proposed and state their roles.
• Professional interpreters and experts may have access without being named in advance.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.2, 262A and 354.3

Other texts

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9

Related decisions

• Dai Nippon Printing v Zapp AG, 28 April 2026, later order of the judge-rapporteur on a lateness objection.

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.