Dolby International v HP Deutschland (CFI, 22 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 22 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_457/2023, ACT_590145/2023, App_25069/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division (Thomas) ruled on the confidentiality application of the fifteen HP group companies, defendants in Dolby International’s infringement action on EP 3 490 258. The information identified in the Statement of Defence is declared confidential, with access limited to the representatives and named employees of Dolby and of the intervener Access Advance. The order refuses to exclude the intervener entirely from access to the most sensitive information.

Question

Can the defendants have the intervener, admitted in support of the claimant, denied any access beyond its lawyers to information on licence negotiations covered by a confidentiality agreement?

Decision

No. The formal requirements of Rule 262A RoP are met and the confidential nature of the information is not seriously disputed. Exhibits not named in the application are not covered. Since an intervener is treated as a party under Rule 315.4 RoP, it is entitled, like any party, to have at least one natural person given access under Rule 262A.6 RoP, absent agreement or waiver. Complete exclusion is incompatible with its role in the proceedings. The Division therefore grants the auxiliary request: access to item I.1 is limited to the intervener’s lawyers and one named employee. Recipients remain bound by confidentiality after the proceedings end, on pain of penalty payments. Measures for the oral hearing and the decision are reserved.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: admitting an intervener widens the confidentiality club, a party protecting licensing information should frame an auxiliary request limiting access to one named person.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262A and 315.4

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943, Art. 9(1) and (2)(a)

Case law cited

Avago v Tesla, Hamburg Local Division, 3 November 2023, 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 March 2024, Mannheim Local Division, 21 March 2024, UPC_CFI_359/2023, Fujifilm v Kodak, Düsseldorf Local Division, 27 March 2024, Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne Technologies, The Hague Local Division, 4 March 2024

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.