Occlutech v Lepu Medical (Europa) Cooperatief U.A. (CFI, 2 September 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 2 September 2025 (UPC_CFI_630/2025, ORD_34741/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division granted the Lepu Medical defendants’ confidentiality request in the provisional measures proceedings brought by Occlutech on EP 1 998 686 B2, but gave the applicant’s managing director, Tor Peters, access to the protected information, which includes sales figures, despite the objection that the parties are direct competitors. The order shows the concrete balancing carried out under Rule 262A.6.

Question

May the managing director of a claimant that competes directly with the defendants be among the persons given access to sales figures which the defendants have had classified as confidential?

Decision

Yes. The marked information is classified as confidential (Art. 58 UPCA, Rule 262.2) and subject to a duty of secrecy that survives the proceedings. A culpable breach may lead to a penalty whose amount depends on the circumstances, without the EUR 250,000 cap the defendants had requested. Access for a given person is assessed by reference to their role in the proceedings, the relevance of the information to that role and their trustworthiness: the applicant’s interest in answering the defendants’ arguments outweighs the defendants’ interest in keeping the sales figures from the managing director, who is himself bound to secrecy, and no concrete facts suggested a breach. The request concerning unredacted versions and third-party access to the file was left undecided.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: competitor status alone does not exclude an officer from access, the party objecting must point to concrete facts suggesting that confidentiality would be breached.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.2 and 262A

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of trade secrets, Art. 9(1) and 9(2)(a)

Case law cited

Avago Technologies International v Tesla Germany, Hamburg Local Division, 23 November 2023 (UPC_CFI_54/2023), 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, Düsseldorf Local Division, 11 March 2024 (UPC_CFI_463/2023), Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 2024 (UPC_CFI_16/2024), Daedalus v Xiaomi, Court of Appeal, 12 February 2025 (UPC_CoA_621/2024), NST v Qualcomm, Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_221/2025, 222/2025 and 223/2025)

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.