Opens in a new tab

STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme (CoA, 1 August 2025)

Date1 August 2025
CourtCoA
DivisionLuxembourg (LU)
Type of actionGeneric application
Registry referenceApp_25317/2025 · ORD_25571/2025
PartiesSTRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH

Official decision (PDF) · UPC registry entry

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

By an order of 1 August 2025 (UPC_CoA_70/2025), the UPC Court of Appeal ruled on the confidentiality requests filed by STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions and by the intervener Chainzone Technology (Foshan) in the appeal against the Vienna Local Division’s decision of 15 January 2025 in SWARCO FUTURIT’s infringement action (EP 2 643 717). It lays down three rules on the interplay between Rules 262.2 and 262A RoP and on the concept of a trade secret.

Question

Can a restriction of access and use against the other party be sought for the first time on appeal for documents filed without reservation at first instance, and which product features amount to a trade secret?

Decision

Restrictions of access and use against a party and its representatives can only be ordered under Rule 262A RoP. A request under Rule 262.2 RoP, which concerns public access only, confers no interim protection (paragraphs 19 to 21). The request must be made when the document is filed (Rule 262A.3 RoP): made for the first time on appeal for a measurement report already filed at first instance, it is inadmissible (paragraphs 24 and 25). Product features that are not readily accessible to third parties and can only be determined through time-consuming analysis are trade secrets under Article 58 UPCA, provided they are kept confidential (paragraphs 14 to 17 and 28 to 34). Information already made public in the contested decision is not confidential (paragraph 42).

Key points for practice

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court
Art. 58
Rules of Procedure
Rules 262.1(b), 262.2, 262.3 and 262A
Case law cited
Munich Local Division, order of 17 March 2025 (UPC_CFI_815/2024), not followed

Related decisions

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.


Going further

Lexicon: UPC Court of Appeal.

Dhenne Avocats blog: UPC Appeals: What the Numbers Show.

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

No case number recorded in this record.
First instance cited in the decision: UPC_CFI_815/2024

Parties

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

Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals

No other decision in the corpus bears the same case number, and no appeal is documented in the corpus to date.

What the record states

Nature of the act
Generic application
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary)
Seule la règle 262A permet de restreindre l'accès d'une partie. La demande doit accompagner le dépôt de la pièce et ne peut être formée pour la première fois en appel. Des caractéristiques de produit révélées par une analyse longue peuvent constituer un secret d'affaires.
Appeal
Decision of the Court of Appeal (first instance cited: UPC_CFI_815/2024).
Instance
Court of Appeal decision.

Patents mentioned

Related decisions cited in the analyses

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

PublicationRole in the disputeFamilyStandard and declarationPoolSources
EP 2 643 717
Color-mixing convergent optical system
recorded proprietor: Swarco Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme GmbH
Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified)
Also mentioned in 14 other decision(s): SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme v STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety · Natural person v SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme (CFI, 25 June 20 · Chainzone Technology (Foshan) v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme ( · Shenzhen Dianming Technology v SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme (C · SWARCO FUTURIT v Yunex (CFI, 2 July 2025) · SWARCO FUTURIT v Yunex (CFI, 3 June 2025) · Chainzone Technology (Foshan) v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme ( · Yunex v SWARCO Futurit Verkehrssignalsysteme (CFI, 30 April 2025)
not recordednot recordednot recordedEspacenet · European Patent Register
existence and title of the publication checked on 30 October 2026 (Google Patents, Espacenet and Register links are not checked automatically)
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.

Follow

Weekly summary, on Fridays.