Dainese v Alpinestars (CFI, 26 August 2025)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

By an order of 26 August 2025 (UPC_CFI_472/2024, ORD_33090/2025), the judge-rapporteur of the Milan Local Division classified as confidential the information on Dainese’s financial situation filed in the security for costs application brought by the defendants, including Alpinestars. She gave access to the defendants’ representatives and to Alpinestars’ general counsel, but deferred the latter’s access until the appeal period had expired, plus one week for any application for suspensive effect, and granted leave to appeal. The order offers a simple way to avoid a fait accompli.

Question

May a claimant’s confidential financial data, filed in response to a request for security for costs, be disclosed to an employee of the defendants, and from when?

Decision

Yes, on a deferred basis. Art. 58 UPCA, read without undue strictness, protects confidential information and not only trade secrets. Dainese’s non-public financial data, whose nature was not disputed, qualify (paragraphs 4 and 5). The right to be heard is weighed against the protection of the information, and the number of persons with access must not exceed what is necessary (paragraphs 6 to 8). As the data are technical accounting data, one natural person shared by all the defendants must be admitted (paragraphs 9 and 10). Leave to appeal is granted and, to avoid a fait accompli, that person’s access begins only after the appeal period plus one further week (paragraphs 11 and 12). Any breach may lead to a penalty (Rule 354.3).

Key points for practice

• Practical point: a party resisting access by an opposing employee may ask for that access to be deferred until the appeal period expires, so that an application for suspensive effect keeps its purpose.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Arts 20, 24(1)(a), 58 and 74

Rules of Procedure

Preamble, point 2, Rules 158, 220.2, 223, 262A and 354.3

Other provisions

Directive (EU) 2016/943 on the protection of trade secrets, recital 25 and Art. 9(2)

Case law cited

Düsseldorf Local Division, order in ACT_578607/2023 (App_6761/2024), Düsseldorf Local Division (UPC_CFI_355/2023)

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.