Google Commerce v Ona Patents (CFI, 9 September 2025)

Date	9 September 2025
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application RoP262A
Registry reference	App_35230/2025 · ORD_35241/2025
Parties	Google Commerce Limited, Google Ireland Limited v. Ona Patents SL

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

By an order of 9 September 2025 in the joined proceedings UPC_CFI_100/2024 and UPC_CFI_411/2024 (App_35230/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division granted Ona Patents’ confidentiality request covering its brief of 20 August 2025 and Exhibits KAP 21 to KAP 33, and dismissed the Google defendants’ request to confine that protection to one section of Exhibit KAP 33 and paragraph 123 of the brief. He also refused to allow the information to be passed to the Munich I Regional Court, which is hearing a parallel dispute. The order shows the weight given to contracts with third parties and the division’s strict approach to the use of confidential exhibits outside the proceedings.

Question

Do exhibits concerning contracts with third parties and internal documents justify restricted access under Rule 262A, and may they be passed to a national court hearing a parallel dispute?

Decision

Yes on the first point: most exhibits concern third parties bound by confidentiality clauses, others are internal documents that are not fully public, and the legal opinion filed assesses confidential agreements. On the defendants’ side, access is limited to the representatives, their team and two named individuals, with a penalty payment for each culpable breach. No on the second: the mere allegation that the arguments on standing to sue are almost identical and that the exhibits are relevant in the Munich case does not justify waiving confidentiality.

Key points for practice

A party wishing to share confidential exhibits with a parallel national court must show more than the similarity of the arguments in both cases.
Practical point: confidentiality clauses agreed with third parties provide solid support for a Rule 262A request.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure: Rule 262A

Related decisions

Ona Patents SL v Google Ireland, 10 September 2025, additional order supplementing this confidentiality order.

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.

Decisions in the same proceedings

Ona Patents SL v Google Ireland a.o (CFI, 2025-09-10), 10 September 2025

Going further

Lexicon: Confidentiality club.

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

No case number recorded in this record.

Parties

defendantOna Patents SL16 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantGoogle Commerce Limited5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantGoogle Ireland Limited6 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: Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La confidentialité des pièces KAP 21 à KAP 33 et de l'écriture du 20 août 2025 est accordée avec un accès restreint côté défenderesses. Leur communication au tribunal de Munich I est refusée.
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.

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Ona Patents v Google Ireland (CFI, 10 September 2025) cited in this record

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.

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.