biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_256/2025, 13 August 2026)

Date	13 August 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Generic Order
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_256/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_256/2025
Parties	S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International, Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH v. biolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

Case timeline

13 August 2026 : biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_256/2025, 13 August 2026, doc. 2) UPC_CFI_256/2025

Dhenne Avocats represents claimants and defendants in European patent disputes before the Unified Patent Court, including the Paris divisions.

Contact the firm

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In an order of 13 August 2026 (UPC_CFI_256/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Düsseldorf Local Division designates as confidential, under Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262.2 RoP, the passages of the cost-fixing submissions concerning hourly rates, billing and time spent by the parties’ representatives, in a dispute between biolitec and Light Guide Optics Germany GmbH and S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International (EP 3 685 783). The order confirms a useful practice: fee data filed in support of a costs application can be withheld from public access.

Question

May information on hourly rates and time spent, filed in cost-fixing proceedings, be designated as confidential?

Decision

Yes. The greyed passages of the cost-fixing application of 24 March 2025 (hourly rates and billing of the respondents’ lawyers and patent attorneys) and of the response of 8 April 2025, together with exhibit CBH 55 (time spent and subject of time records), are designated confidential. Since this information is accessible only to a limited circle of people, there is a legitimate interest in protecting it. The reasons, which are not numbered, refer to two earlier orders, one of them from the same division.

Key points for practice

Practical point: a party quantifying its costs may grey out hourly rates and time records and request confidential treatment in the same submission.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 58
Rules of Procedure: Rules 262.2 and 262A
Case law cited: Ortovox v Mammut, Düsseldorf Local Division, 22 April 2025, Grundfos v Hefei Xinhu Canned Motor Pump, 7 August 2026 (App_2262/2026)

Related decisions

biolitec v Light Guide Optics, 13 August 2026, order of the same day setting the value of the provisional measures proceedings and staying the cost-fixing proceedings.

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.

Decisions in the same proceedings

S.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International v biolitec & (CFI, UPC_CFI_256/2025, doc eed8382a, 2026-08-13), 13 August 2026

Going further

Lexicon: Written procedure (UPC), Court fees and costs (UPC).

Source and translations

Official source: Unified Patent Court registry link recorded in the record
Original language: not recorded
Translation available: no translation recorded the firm’s French record is a summary, not a translation
Date checked: not recorded

Only the official text is authoritative. A machine translation is never presented as official, republishing a third-party document requires a verified basis in rights, and a link to the source is preferred.

Follow this case

Proceedings, related decisions, appeals, parties and patents as recorded in the registry and in the Dhenne Avocats corpus. Each link states its source.

Proceedings

UPC_CFI_256/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantS.I.A. LIGHTGUIDE International4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
claimantLight Guide Optics Germany GmbH4 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantbiolitec Holding GmbH & Co. KG5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

Exact name as it appears in the record, group affiliation only where sourced and dated.

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

13 August 2026 biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_256/2025, 13 August 2026) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_256/2025
13 August 2026 biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_256/2025, 13 August 2026, doc. 2) Generic Order · UPC_CFI_256/2025
La division locale de Düsseldorf fixe à 1 000 000 euros la valeur de la procédure de mesures provisoires et suspend la fixation des frais jusqu'à la décision définitive au fond devant la division locale de Munich.

What the record states

Nature of the act: Generic Order
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): Les passages des écritures de fixation des frais relatifs aux taux horaires, à la facturation et au temps passé par les conseils sont classés confidentiels.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 685 783 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, UPC_CFI_256/2025, 13 August 2026, doc. 2) cited in this record
Ortovox Sportartikel v Mammut Sports Group (CFI, ORD_7946/2025, 22 April 2025) cited in this record

Scope: Dhenne Avocats corpus. Registry-based links are marked “official number”; links derived from the analyses are marked as such. An erroneous link can be withdrawn without deleting any record.

Patents and standards

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 685 783`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 4 other decision(s): biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, 2 April 2026) · Biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CoA, 24 February 2025) · biolitec Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, 12 February 2025) · Bioletic Holding v Light Guide Optics Germany (CFI, 5 September 2024)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis

The statuses “asserted in litigation”, “declared essential”, “listed by a pool” and “essentiality examined by a court” are distinct and may coexist. Validity, infringement and technical essentiality are different questions. Scope: patents cited in the decisions of the Dhenne Avocats corpus, with no essentiality score or prediction.

Receive an alert

Weekly summary of new records and substantive updates matching what you follow. Address confirmed by email, unsubscribe at any time, one email per week even where several of your follows match.