Maxeon Solar v Aiko Energy Germany (CFI, 21 January 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 21 January 2025, made in the infringement action and counterclaim for revocation between Maxeon Solar and Aiko Energy Germany and seven other defendants (UPC_CFI_336/2024 and UPC_CFI_605/2024, EP 3 065 184), Presiding Judge Thomas, acting as judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division, dismissed an application to rectify an earlier confidentiality order under Rule 262A RoP. That order had granted access to a natural person of the seventh defendant, PowerDeal. Only its redacted version replaced the name with « […] ». The order usefully marks the line between rectification and a challenge on the merits.

Question

Does the omission of an authorised person’s name from the redacted version of a confidentiality order amount to a clerical mistake or obvious slip that may be rectified under Rule 353 RoP?

Decision

The application, filed within the one-month time limit, was admissible but unfounded. Obvious slips cover any incorrect or incomplete statement of what the Court actually intended, the discrepancy having to exist when the decision was made. The unredacted version of the order does name the natural person, so the order contains neither an obvious slip nor any other clerical mistake. The Court relied on two earlier orders of the same division.

Key points for practice

• Rule 353 RoP is not a means of altering a redacted version that is consistent with Rule 262A RoP: the full version alone expresses what the Court intended.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262A and 353

Case law cited

myStromer v Revolt Zycling, Düsseldorf Local Division, 30 June 2023, Valeo v Magna, Düsseldorf Local Division, 20 November 2024 (UPC_CFI_347/2024)

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.