UPC_CFI_488/2023
ACT_47298/2024
App_63904/2024

Procedural Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
Local Division Munich
issued on 8 February 2025

APPLICANTS (DEFENDANTS)
1) Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson, Torshamnsgatan 21, Kista - 16483 - Stockholm – SE
2) Ericsson GmbH, Prinzenallee 21 - 40549 - Düsseldorf - DE
represented by: Christof Augenstein

RESPONDENT (CLAIMANT)
Motorola Mobility LLC, 222 W. Merchandise Mart Plaza, Suite 1800 - Illiniois 60654 - Chicago
- US
represented by: Klaus Haft

PATENT AT ISSUE
European patent n° 3 780 758

PANEL
Panel 1 of the Local Division Munich

DECIDING JUDGE
This order has been issued by the judge-rapporteur Tobias Pichlmaier

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS
English

FACTS AND REQUESTS
Defendants refer in their statement of defense and the respective exhibits to license
negotiations between the group of the Claimant and the group of Defendant’s. To protect this
information, Defendants filed an application for confidentiality pursuant to R. 262A RoP.
Defendants assert that
- the information that is the subject of the application under point I.1 (see below) are
highly confidential business secrets, which are not generally known and available
to third parties;
- the parties (i.e. the Claimant’s group and the Defendant’s group) have assumed for
these negotiations that this information is secret and should not be disclosed to third
parties;

Defendants therefore r e q u e s t
I. according to R. 262A RoP
1. to classify the following information as confidential, so that the provisions of R.
262A RoP apply and, in particular, the information concerned is not published in
the register or otherwise disclosed, namely
Information on the license negotiations that preceded this legal dispute and
are still ongoing, as well as internal considerations and calculations, namely
− the statements highlighted in grey
− the “Exhibits KAP FRAND” labelled as “strictly confidential”;
Such information according to section I.1. is contained in the submission
referred to;
2. to order that
the Claimant is only allowed to provide the information under I.1 to the
authorised representatives and their staff (including experts and their team
members) in this proceeding (ACT_47298/2024; UPC Number:
UPC_CFI_488/2024) and may not disclose it to third parties
unless the Claimant can prove that it has lawfully obtained knowledge of the
information classified as confidential outside the present proceedings and
that they are complying with any restrictions associated with this other
acquisition of knowledge, in particular such restrictions arising from
(pre)contractual nondisclosure agreements, concluded expressly or implied;
3. the Claimant has to pay a proportionate penalty payment in an amount to be
determined by the court for each case of culpably non-compliance with this
order;
4. to order the individuals listed under I.2
a) to keep the confidential information according to section I.1 strictly
confidential also beyond the proceedings and
b) to use the confidential information exclusively for the purposes of these
proceedings ACT_47298/2024; UPC Number: UPC_CFI_488/2024);
II. that in the event that the Court rejects the Defendants’ applications for
confidentiality wholly or partially, the information and/or documents submitted
and subject to the above applications shall be deemed to have been submitted
to the file and may be used in the proceedings by the other party and the Court
only if and to the extent that the Defendants do not object within three days of
receipt of the final and legally binding decision;
III. that the court orders that the decision is only enforceable after three (3) days
beginning from the date it became final and legally binding.

Claimant opposes the Application and r e q u e s t s
to dismiss the application.
Claimant states that it has been practiced between the parties in the FRAND negotiations to
see the claimant as part of the Lenovo group of companies. Most of the Information under the
R. 262A RoP Application originates from Lenovo itself. There is no reason to exclude Lenovo
or individuals at Lenovo from its own information. even to the extent the R. 262A Application
relates to information of Ericsson, that information has already been distributed and used within
Lenovo, the Lenovo group of companies and by their representatives, without any
confidentiality obligations prior Ericsson’s submission of such information in the present
proceedings.

GROUNDS
In their statement of Defence Defendants declare:
“The Claimant is a subsidiary of the Lenovo Group, Ltd., a Chinese multinational
technology company which has its global headquarters in Beijing, China. During
the license discussions contact essentially took place between the Defendant 1)
and Lenovo US on behalf of the Lenovo Group including its subsidiary Motorola
Mobility, LLC. Therefore, we collectively refer to “Lenovo” in the following including
the Claimant if not stated otherwise.
Based on this statement, there is no reason to differentiate between Motorola and Lenovo in
the context of this Application for confidentiality.
Restrictions based on R. 262A RoP serve to protect a party’s confidential information (trade
secrets, personal data or other confidential information) by imposing restrictions on the other
party receiving the confidential information through their submission into the court proceedings.
There is no justification for restricting a party’s access to its own information.
Most of the Information under the Rule- 262A-Application originates from Lenovo (Motorola)
itself. The Rule-262A-Application does not differentiate between Lenovo’s and Ericsson’s
information. It is certainly not the task of the Court to examine all exhibits and writs to determine
which party the information originates from in each case.
Furthermore, if the parties (i.e. the Claimant’s group and the Defendant’s group) – as stated in
the Application – have already assumed for these negotiations that this information is secret
and should not be disclosed to third parties, there is no apparent reason why the information
in question additionally should be restricted with a Rule-262A-Order. On the other hand, if there
were no confidentiality obligations for this information disclosed in the pre-trial negotiations
prior Ericsson’s submission of such information in the present proceedings – as stated in
Respondent’s comments to this Application –, there is also no apparent reason why the
information in question should be restricted with a Rule-262A-Order.
Therefore, this Rule-262A-Application is unfounded as such. There is no reason to exclude
Lenovo (Motorola) or individuals at Lenovo (Motorola) from Lenovo’s (Motorola’s) own
information.

ORDER
The Application is rejected in its entirety.

INFORMATION ABOUT REVIEW BY PANEL
The Applicants may request that this Order be referred to the panel for a review pursuant to
Rule 333 RoP. Pending review, the Order shall be effective (Rule 102.2 RoP).