Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 1 April 2026)

Dhenne Avocats · 10 October 2026

Our analysis

Summary

In a procedural order of 1 April 2026 (UPC_CFI_1034/2025 and UPC_CFI_931/2026), the Düsseldorf Local Division deals with Micron’s request under Rule 262A RoP to protect its estimated 2026 gross profit from direct sales of the attacked products in Germany and France (EP 3 909 047). It classifies that information as confidential under Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262.2, restricts access to Yangtze Memory’s UPC representatives, their assistants and four named employees, and provides for a penalty payment in the event of a culpable breach. The order is signed by Judge Thomas, presiding.

Question

Can a precise profit estimate be protected where the party has itself disclosed an order of magnitude, and who should be in the access group?

Decision

The order restates the three trade-secret criteria (information not generally known, commercial value because secret, reasonable steps to keep it secret), relying on the Court of Appeal in EoFlow v Insulet. The formal requirements of Rule 262A.2 and 262A.3 RoP are met and the claimant was heard. Micron’s reference to a figure of « more than EUR 13,000,000 » does not deprive the precise estimate of its confidential character. The access group must include at least one natural person of the party concerned (Rule 262A.6 RoP), the party seeking protection must raise specific objections, and Micron raised none against the four employees proposed. The operative part classifies as confidential the 2026 gross profit estimates for France and Germany and the values derived from them, restricts access to the unredacted statement of defence and witness declaration, imposes strict confidentiality, including after the proceedings, save for information obtained from another source not bound by secrecy, and reserves a penalty payment to be set according to the circumstances of each breach.

Key points for practice

• Practical point: disclosing an order of magnitude does not compromise protection of the exact figure, and objections to the access group must target the individuals proposed.

Provisions applied

Rules of Procedure

Rules 262.2, 262A.2, 262A.3, 262A.4 and 262A.6

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court

Art. 58

Case law cited

EoFlow v Insulet, Court of Appeal, 18 March 2026, Maxeon Solar v Aiko, Düsseldorf Local Division, 23 December 2024 (UPC_CFI_336/2024)

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.