EOFLOW v Insulet (CoA, 18 March 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 18 March 2026 (UPC_CoA_930/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal dismissed EOFlow Co., Ltd.’s appeal against the Milan Central Division order of 4 December 2025 (UPC_CFI_1167/2025), which had refused to treat as confidential under Rule 262.2 business information disclosed to Insulet Corporation in compliance with an order to provide information (EP 4 201 327). The court held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information received from the other side: only an order under Rule 262A restricts such use. For a party obliged to disclose sensitive data, the lesson is plain: protection must be sought before disclosure.

Question

Can business information disclosed to the opponent without a protective order still be withheld from the public under Rule 262.2?

Decision

A trade secret requires information that is secret, has commercial value because it is secret and has been subject to reasonable steps to keep it secret (paragraph 18, Article 39(2) TRIPS). Rules 262 and 262A also cover other confidential information (paragraph 23). The court rejected the notion of an implicit procedural restriction: information received without restriction is no longer a trade secret or other confidential information (paragraphs 26 and 27). A Rule 262.2 request does not protect against disclosure to the other party. Only Rule 262A does (paragraph 29), and EOFlow had not sought such an order, having even stated that it was unnecessary (paragraph 30). The assertion about the content of a settlement, already set out in a published order, is public (paragraphs 31 to 33). The appeal was dismissed and EOFlow must bear Insulet’s costs of the appeal.

Key points for practice

• A party ordered to disclose information should apply for a Rule 262A order before handing it over. Otherwise it can no longer keep that information from the public (paragraphs 26 to 30).
• Information already set out in a published decision can no longer be protected as a trade secret (paragraph 33).

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 24(1)(d), Art. 58 and Art. 69(1)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.1(b), 262.2 and 262A

Other provisions

Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS), Art. 39(2), Directive (EU) 2016/943

Case law cited

Court of Appeal, Strabag v Swarco Futurit, 1 August 2025, UPC_CoA_70/2025, Court of Appeal, Kodak v Fujifilm, 14 October 2025, Court of Appeal, Docket Navigator v Syngenta, 19 December 2025, Court of Appeal, Gowling WLG (Boe v Zentiva Portugal), 24 February 2026, Court of Appeal, Meril v Swat, 5 May 2025, UPC_CoA_634/2024, Court of Appeal, EOFlow v Insulet, 29 January 2026

Related decisions

• EOFlow v Insulet, 4 February 2026, dismissal of EOFlow’s appeal against the penalty payment and costs ordered in the same first-instance order.
• EOFlow v Insulet, 29 January 2026, confidentiality order in the appeal proceedings.

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.