Valeo Electrification v Magna PT (CFI, 20 September 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By a procedural order of 20 September 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024, ACT_37931/2024, App_51893/2024), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division classified as confidential, under Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262.2, passages and exhibits of the rejoinder of 16 September 2024 filed by Magna PT B.V. & Co. KG, Magna PT s.r.o. and Magna International France SARL in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Valeo Electrification on the basis of EP 3 320 602 B1. He declined to extend access to an additional lawyer named by Valeo. The order clarifies who answers for confidentiality within a party’s team.

Question

Should access to confidential information be granted by name to an additional lawyer on the other side?

Decision

Access is confined to Valeo’s representatives and the active members of their team, to designated reliable persons and to two named lawyers. Recipients must keep the information secret and use it only for the proceedings, with a penalty payment for each culpable breach, the representatives being liable for their team members. Access for the additional lawyer was not needed: if he is actively involved in the case, the representatives may admit him to their team, under their responsibility, if not, Magna’s interest in confidentiality prevails. The position of a Magna representative, who had access from the outset in that capacity, was not comparable.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: rather than seeking named access for an additional lawyer, a party should bring that lawyer into its representatives’ team, the representatives then answering for compliance with confidentiality.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.2 and 262A

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.