Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 3 February 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 3 February 2025 (UPC_CFI_336/2024 and UPC_CFI_605/2024, EP 3 065 184 B1), the Düsseldorf Local Division (Judge Thomas, presiding and rapporteur) amended its confidentiality order of 23 December 2024 to add three individuals to the circle allowed to see Aiko’s confidential financial data (revenue, profit, sales and calculation methods), but refused access to a lawyer and Chinese patent agent. The dispute is between Maxeon Solar and Aiko and several distributors (infringement action and revocation counterclaim). The order clarifies where the burden of objection lies when the confidentiality circle is set.

Question

How is the burden allocated when the party whose access is restricted asks to widen the circle of authorised persons under Rule 262A?

Decision

The restricted party may propose the number of persons it needs. The party claiming confidentiality must then raise specific objections, general objections being insufficient (paragraph 1). Being an independent consultant rather than an employee does not in itself justify refusal, since the person is bound by the order on pain of a penalty payment (paragraph 2). Named only belatedly, the lawyer and patent agent had no separate right of access. She could join the representatives’ team, who would answer for any breach, but if she took no part in the proceedings there was no reason to grant access (paragraph 3).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: opposing an extension of the confidentiality circle requires targeted objections to each person, conversely, someone outside the litigation team gets no free-standing access.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rule 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.