Panasonic v Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecomm (CFI, 14 February 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 14 February 2024 (UPC_CFI_210/2023), the presiding judge of the Mannheim Local Division, acting as judge-rapporteur, set up for the whole of the proceedings concerning Panasonic’s EP 2 568 724 a confidentiality regime for the licence agreements the parties wish to file, in particular on the FRAND issues. He deferred ruling on the applications for production of documents under Rule 190 RoP, since their relevance could not be assessed before the reply and rejoinder in the revocation actions. The order provides a practical thirteen-step guide to filing confidential documents in the CMS.

Question

How are licence agreements containing confidential information of third parties to be filed, and should the Rule 190 applications for production be decided at once?

Decision

Business information in licence agreements is in principle worthy of protection. The party wishing to file an agreement must itself obtain the position of its contractual partner, which it can contact directly, rather than require the Court to effect service abroad under the Hague Convention or the EU Service Regulation, particularly as it agreed to clauses restricting disclosure. Under the regime, the unredacted document is uploaded so that only the Court can see it, together with a redacted version and an application under Rule 262 or 262A RoP, which may be conditional. A provisional order gives access to opposing counsel only, solely to respond to the application, with the option of naming a person at its client. If the application is refused in whole or in part, the filing party may treat the document as not filed. Third party access requests (Rule 262.3 RoP) do not extend to it. The Court relied on an order of the Düsseldorf Local Division of the same day.

Key points for practice

• Filing licence agreements in FRAND litigation may be made conditional on the protection sought being granted in full, the filing party keeping the option to withdraw the document.
• The party filing an agreement must itself involve the contractual partner whose confidentiality is at stake.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 9, 190, 191, 262 and 262A

Case law cited

Düsseldorf Local Division, 14 February 2024, UPC_CFI_463/2023

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.