STRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignalsysteme (CoA, 1 August 2025)
| Date | 1 August 2025 |
|---|---|
| Court | CoA |
| Division | Luxembourg (LU) |
| Type of action | Generic application |
| Registry reference | App_25317/2025 · ORD_25571/2025 |
| Parties | STRABAG 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.
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
- A Rule 262A request must accompany the filing of the document, from the first instance onwards. It cannot be made good on appeal.
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
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_815/2024Parties
- claimantSTRABAG Infrastructure & Safety Solutions GmbH6 decisions in the corpusFollow this party
Decisions in the same proceedings and documented appeals
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
EP 2 643 717mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent
Related decisions cited in the analyses
- STRABAG Infrastructure & Safet v SWARCO FUTURIT Verkehrssignals (CoA, 27 November 2025) cited in this record
- Topsoe v SYPOX (CFI, 26 August 2026) cites this decision
- Fives ECL v REEL (CoA, 17 July 2026) cites this decision
- CA v Deutsche Telekom (CFI, 15 July 2026) cites this decision
- SharkNinja Operating v Groupe SEB France (CoA, 10 June 2026) cites this decision
- EDWARDS LIFESCIENCES v MERIL LIFE SCIENCES (CFI, 5 December 2025) cites this decision
- Huawei v MediaTek Germany (CFI, ORD_35006/2025, 21 August 2025) cites this decision
Patents and standards
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.