Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 11 May 2026)

Date	11 May 2026
Court	CFI
Division	Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Type of action	Application RoP262A
Case number(s)	UPC_CFI_1035/2025
Registry reference	UPC_CFI_1035/2025
Parties	Yangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd. v. Micron Technology, Inc. a. o.

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

In an order of 11 May 2026 (UPC_CFI_1034/2025 and UPC_CFI_931/2026, EP 3 909 047), the Düsseldorf Local Division grants Yangtze Memory Technologies the confidentiality protection it sought for a TechInsights technical report (Exhibit BB 24) and for the passages of its reply that refer to it. The order runs against the claimant itself, none of whose natural persons may access the information, because the report’s supplier prohibits disclosure to the client on account of US export controls.

Question

Can a licensed technical report, which the supplier forbids disclosing to the party itself, be classified as confidential under Art. 58 UPCA and Rule 262A RoP, with every natural person of the producing party excluded from access?

Decision

The Division recalls that protection is not confined to trade secrets and weighs the parties’ interests (paragraphs 14 to 16). The report is not freely available, since its ‘publication’ date did not mean free access, and the claimant showed a risk of breaching export controls (paragraphs 19 to 21). An order against the requesting party itself is admissible where there is a legitimate interest, and the requirement of a natural person within the confidentiality club (Rule 262A.6 RoP) may be waived by the party concerned (paragraphs 22 to 28). Access is reserved to both sides’ representatives and legal teams and to the defendants’ natural persons, on pain of a penalty payment.

Key points for practice

A party may seek an access restriction directed at itself where a contractual or regulatory constraint prevents its representative from passing to it an exhibit it wishes to file.
Practical point: file the relevant excerpts of the licence agreement early, they carried the Division past the objection that the report was public.

Provisions applied

Agreement on a Unified Patent Court: Art. 58
Rules of Procedure: Rules 262A and 288
Case law cited: DISH Technologies v AYLO Premium, Mannheim Local Division, 22 July 2024, Panasonic v Xiaomi, Mannheim Local Division, 30 April 2024, Munich Local Division, 8 May 2024 (UPC_CFI_9/2023), Sun Patent Trust v Vivo, Court of Appeal, 26 January 2026, Fujifilm v Kodak, Mannheim Local Division, 21 March 2024, 10x Genomics v Vizgen, Hamburg Local Division, 24 October 2024, Oerlikon v Himson, Milan Local Division, 23 July 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.

Going further

Lexicon: Confidentiality club.

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

UPC_CFI_1035/2025 official number

Follow this case

Parties

claimantYangtze Memory Technologies Co., Ltd.5 decisions in the corpus Follow this party
defendantMicron Technology, Inc. a. o2 decisions in the corpus Follow this party

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: Application RoP262A
Outcome (Dhenne Avocats summary): La division locale classe confidentiels le rapport TechInsights et les passages de la réplique qui s'y réfèrent, en excluant toute personne physique de la demanderesse du cercle d'accès.
Appeal: No appeal documented in the corpus, this does not mean that no appeal was lodged.
Instance: First-instance decision, whether it has become final is not recorded.

Patents mentioned

EP 3 909 047 mentioned in: Dhenne Avocats analysis Follow this patent

Related decisions cited in the analyses

Sun Patent Trust v Vivo Mobile Communication (CoA, 26 January 2026) cited in this record

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

Publication	Role in the dispute	Family	Standard and declaration	Pool	Sources
`EP 3 909 047`	Mentioned in the analysis (role not qualified) Also mentioned in 2 other decision(s): Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 2 September 2026) · Yangtze Memory v Micron (CFI, 1 April 2026)	not recorded	not recorded	not recorded	Espacenet links not checked 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.