Plant-e Knowledge v Arkyne (CFI, ORD_27758/2024, 15 May 2024)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 15 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_239/2023, ACT_549536/2023, App_15573/2024), the judge-rapporteur of The Hague Local Division held confidential the test data produced by Arkyne Technologies (« Bioo »), defendant to Plant-e’s infringement action on EP 2 137 782, but widened the access circle sought: instead of a single natural person, Plant-e obtains access for its representatives, its party expert and three named employees. The order shows that protecting secrets must not deprive the other side of an effective opportunity to address a key technical exhibit.

Question

Are test results obtained in a third party’s pilot field confidential within the meaning of Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP, and how many people on the other side should have access to them?

Decision

The applicant must make confidentiality sufficiently plausible through concrete arguments (paragraph 11). A non-disclosure agreement with the third party, which need not be produced, and the fact that the data have not been made public are enough. Selling the panels does not make the test results public, and they have commercial value (paragraphs 12 to 14). Balancing the right to be heard against the protection of confidential information (paragraphs 15 and 16), the judge noted that the data lie at the heart of the non-infringement defence and were filed late: access is granted to Plant-e’s legal team, to its expert, whose confidentiality undertaking addresses the risk of disclosure, and to three employees (paragraphs 17 to 21). Use is confined to the infringement action, a penalty of up to EUR 100,000 per breach is provided for, and costs are reserved to the main proceedings.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party that files decisive technical data late under confidentiality should expect a wider access circle, party expert included, Rule 262A.6 RoP requires at least one natural person per party, and the circle is sized according to what an effective defence actually requires.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58 and Art. 82(4)

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262A.1, 262A.5, 262A.6, 262A.7 and 354.3

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.