20 January 2025
Court of Appeal, Amazon v Nokia
Confidentiality on appeal
Background
The Local Division (“LD”) Munich ordered confidentiality (R. 262A RoP) with respect to certain information and documents from Nokia.
Amazon appealed and filed a request under R. 262.2 RoP and R. 262A RoP.
Court of Appeal with respect to R. 262A RoP
- All information and related content which was already protected by the order of the LD remains confidential. A new order in appeal is not necessary (cf. Curio v 10x Genomics).
- As far as a request for confidentiality relates to information etc. which was not covered by the previous LD order, the request is not sufficiently precise.
Court of Appeal with respect to R. 262.2 RoP
- The Court grants the request, noting that Amazon provided sufficient justification (and here it is clear to which information the request pertains).
- The Court makes clear that in case a representative breaches confidentiality, penalties are forfeited by the party represented by the representative and not the representative itself.
Comment
- It is already established case law that (if not appealed) an R. 262A RoP (confidentiality) order of an LD remains valid on appeal (and I add – also in my opinion without this being specified in the order – thereafter as long as that information is not publicly available).
- An application for confidentiality must clearly specify the information and why the request is justified.
- An R.262.2 RoP order makes sure that the public cannot obtain the information from the register. In this case, Amazon also asked that the hearing would not be public as far as this protected information is concerned and that the information would not be published in the publicly available version of the judgment. This shows what a representative should demand if he wants to make sure that certain information is fully protected!
20 January 2025
Nordic-Baltic Division, Abbott v Dexcom
Settlement
Background and decision
The parties request the Court to permit withdrawal, agree with each other’s request and do not ask for costs.
The Court grants the request.
Comment
The court refers to R. 265 RoP and states that parties can appeal within two months after service of the Court’s decision. As I said several times before (and the Court of Appeal confirmed), you do not have to use R. 265 RoP (in my view it is not even applicable) in case of a settlement. Just inform the Court about the fact that the case is settled. It avoids the strange situation which we see in this case, in which the Court states that you can appeal the withdrawal while the case is settled. That does not make any sense!
20 January 2025
Local Division Paris, NJ Diffusion v Gisela Mayer
Request for interim conference
Background
NJ Diffusion requested a hearing to inspect the two wigs deposited at the registry and to position strong lamps directed to the place where the cap is connected exactly at the level of the assembly strip, to make photos and enlargements for presentation during the oral hearing.
Mayer responds:
a) The request should have been made under R. 201 RoP (regarding experiments).
b) The request was late, as it was submitted a week after NJ Diffusion’s reply.
Decision of the Judge Rapporteur (“JR”)
- Parties are free to bring evidence in the way as they see fit.