Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications (CFI, 9 July 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 9 July 2024 (UPC_CFI_210/2023), the judge-rapporteur of the Mannheim Local Division, in Panasonic’s action against OROPE Germany and Guangdong OPPO based on EP 2 568 724 (a standard essential patent), set the confidentiality regime for licences granted to third parties and for the FRAND negotiations. He increased to three the number of OPPO employees admitted to the confidentiality club and allowed exchanges with the representatives in the parallel proceedings before the Munich Local Division, but refused any sharing with counsel in the UK proceedings.

Question

What protection does Rule 262A RoP afford to third-party licences and to the history of FRAND negotiations, and who on the defendants’ side may access them?

Decision

An unredacted version uploaded by mistake in parallel proceedings does not preclude an order, which still serves to prevent further dissemination (paragraph 1). A non-disclosure agreement does not remove the interest in the application, since the order carries enforceable penalties without a cap (Rule 354.3) and also protects against third-party access to the file (paragraph 2). For third-party licences, the content remains protected, not only the licensee’s name (paragraph 3). However, the negotiations between the parties, already known to the defendants, cannot be subject to access restrictions. Only the correspondence filed is protected, and the abstract chronology must be capable of appearing in public decisions (paragraph 4), as must the fact that the licensees’ consent to production was sought (paragraph 5). Three employees are needed given the complexity of the FRAND debate (paragraph 6). Access is reserved to representatives entitled to act before the UPC (Art. 48 UPCA), excluding UK counsel, departing from an order of the Munich Local Division (paragraph 7), but the representatives in the Munich proceedings may be involved solely for the purposes of UPC proceedings (paragraph 8).

Key points for practice

• The FRAND negotiation history known to both parties is protected only against third parties and the public, and only to the extent compatible with reasoned public decisions.
• Practical point: the UPC confidentiality club does not extend to teams litigating outside the UPC, in particular in the United Kingdom, given the lack of control and of means to enforce penalties.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 48

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262, 262A and 354.3

Case law cited

Ocado v AutoStore, Court of Appeal, 10 April 2024, Panasonic v OPPO, Mannheim Local Division, 14 February 2024, Mannheim Local Division, 21 March 2024, UPC_CFI_359/2023, Düsseldorf Local Division, UPC_CFI_355/2023, Munich Local Division, 4 July 2024, UPC_CFI_220/2023, Mannheim Local Division, 3 July 2024, UPC_CFI_471/2023.

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.