TCL Deutschland v Corning (CoA, 14 May 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By order of 14 May 2025, issued in the two joined appeals UPC_CoA_423/2025 and UPC_CoA_424/2025, the standing judge of the Court of Appeal dismissed the request for discretionary review filed by Hisense, TCL and LG against the Mannheim Local Division’s refusal to grant leave to appeal its order declining to separate Corning’s action against them for infringement of EP 3 296 274 (UPC_CFI_819/2024). The order makes clear that confidentiality between competing co-defendants does not of itself require separation.

Question

Are unrelated co-defendants, who must disclose sensitive supply-chain information, entitled to have the proceedings separated, having regard in particular to Art. 101 TFEU?

Decision

The request was admissible but unfounded (paragraph 10). Separation is a matter of discretion, involving a balance between the parties’ legitimate interests and the public interest (paragraph 13). While competing companies may legitimately protect their business information (paragraph 14), separation is not the only route: access can be restricted under Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262A, or by agreement between the parties, and the risk of breach is reduced by confining access to trustworthy individuals (paragraphs 15 and 16). Procedural economy may justify a single set of proceedings, with no misuse of discretion (paragraphs 17 and 18), Rule 262A protection must then be granted if requested (paragraph 19).

Key points for practice

• The risk of information exchange between competing co-defendants is addressed first through confidentiality measures, not by separating the proceedings.
• Practical point: competing co-defendants should promptly seek a Rule 262A order, which the court must grant where the proceedings are not separated.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Rules of Procedure

Rules 220.3, 220.4, 262A and 303.2

Case law cited

Daedalus Prime v Xiaomi Netherlands, 12 February 2025, CJEU, 29 July 2024, C-298/22

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.