Düsseldorf Local Division
UPC_CFI_355/2023
Procedural Order
of the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court
issued on 27 March 2024
concerning EP 3 594 009 B1

HEADNOTES:
1. When deciding an application to grant protection for the allegedly confidential information,
the court has to weigh the right of a party to have unlimited access to the documents
contained in the file, which guarantees its fundamental right to be heard, against the interest
of the opposing party to have its confidential information protected.
2. A party seeking protection for confidential information has – in a first step – to put forward
sufficiently substantiated arguments, why it believes the information concerned is to be
protected. It is therefore not enough to have resort to general circumstances such as there
being competition between the parties to the dispute. The court has to be put in a position
to understand, why the applicant believes that the concrete information to be protected is
vulnerable and confidential. It is therefore necessary to substantiate with regard to each
redacted part of the written submissions, why this explicit part of the submission amounts
to confidential information.
3. Once adequate explanation in that regard has been received, it is then for the court to
decide, which extent of certainty has to be reached for the court to believe that the
applicant’s allegations are true. The necessary level of persuasion that the information is
confidential in nature may differ having due regard to the substance matter of the dispute.
4. In a further step, the court has to strike a balance between the adequate level of protection
of said confidential information and the right of the claimant to have sufficient access to the
information in order to exercise its right to be heard. In this context, R. 262A.6 RoP estab-
lishes with all desirable clarity as a ground rule of paramount importance that at least one
natural person from each party and the respective lawyers or other representatives are to
be granted access in order to ensure a fair trial. When deciding upon the level of restriction,
again the circumstances of the case are to be taken into consideration. Whereas in some
cases a restriction may be more important to safeguard the confidential information con-
cerned, in other cases the right to full access to the files of a party trumps the interest of
protection.

KEYWORDS:
Protection of confidential information; R. 262A RoP; confidential information; confidentiality club

CLAIMANT:
FUJIFILM Corporation, 26-30, Nishiazabu 2-chome, Minato-ku, Tokyo 106-8620, Japan,
represented by: Lars Baum, HOYNG ROKH MONEGIER, Steinstraße 20, 40212
Düsseldorf, Germany
electronic address for service: …

DEFENDANT:
1. Kodak GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart, represented by its CEOs … and … , at the
same place,
represented by: Eva Acker, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte
Steuerberater PartG mbB, Feldmühleplatz 1, 40545
Düsseldorf, Germany
electronic address for service: …
2. Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart, represented by
its CEOs … and … , at the same place,
represented by: Eva Acker, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte
Steuerberater PartG mbB, Feldmühleplatz 1, 40545
Düsseldorf, Germany
electronic address for service: …
3. Kodak Holding GmbH, Kesselstraße 19, 70327 Stuttgart, represented by its CEOs … and … ,
at the same place,
represented by: Eva Acker, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer Rechtsanwälte
Steuerberater PartG mbB, Feldmühleplatz 1, 40545
Düsseldorf, Germany
electronic address for service: …

PATENT AT ISSUE:
European patent n° EP 3 594 009 B1

PANEL/DIVISION:
Panel of the Local Division in Düsseldorf

DECIDING JUDGES:
This order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas acting as judge-rapporteur, by the legally
qualified judge Dr. Thom and the legally qualified judge Lopes.

LANGUAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS: English

SUBJECT OF THE PROCEEDINGS: Patent infringement action – R. 262A RoP Final order of the panel

SUMMARY OF FACTS AND STATEMENT OF FORMS OF ORDER SOUGHT BY THE PARTIES:
The defendants put forward information in their statements of defence allegedly being of confi-
dential nature. The respective information is highlighted in grey. With regard to said information
the defendants submitted an application for protection of confidential information under R. 262A
RoP using the dedicated workflow in the CMS (App_6761/2024) and uploaded redacted versions
of their written submissions.

The defendants request:
1. to classify the information listed in more detail in the following table (which are high-
lighted in gray in the Statement of Defence or marked as confidential (evidence)) sub-
mitted in in ACT_578607/2023 as confidential (Rule 262.2 RoP UPC);
2. to order that the information subject to confidentiality under Item 1. above shall be
subject to an appropriate duty of confidentiality, i.e., shall be kept confidential by
anyone who becomes aware of it by reason of his or her participation in these pro-
ceedings (as a party, representative, witness, expert, court employee, or otherwise)
and shall not be used or disclosed outside of these court proceedings unless he or she
has become aware of it outside of these proceedings, provided that it became available
to the receiving party on a non-confidential basis from a source other than the Defend-
ant or its affiliates, provided that such source is not bound by a confidentiality agree-
ment with or other obligation of secrecy to a Defendant or its affiliates;
3. Plaintiff may make available the information under Item 1. only to those representa-
tives and internally to those employees that have a legitimate need to access the in-
formation. The access is limited to Plaintiffs legal representatives and a maximum of
three employees to be named by the Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 262.A RoP UPC;
whereby the named employees shall not be involved in research and development,
pricing or any other competitive decision making, and shall not be involved in prose-
cution of patent applications for a period of 5 years after the end of the present pro-
ceedings (including potential appeal proceedings);
4. to point out
a. that the obligation to maintain secrecy pursuant to Item 1. shall continue to ap-
ply after the court proceedings have been concluded unless the disputed infor-
mation becomes known or readily accessible to persons in the circles that usually
have access to such information;
b. that the information to be kept confidential pursuant to Item 1. shall be kept
confidential by all persons who become aware of it due to their participation in
these proceedings (as a party, representative, witness, expert, or otherwise) and
that it shall not be used or disclosed outside of these proceedings unless they
have become aware of it outside of the proceedings, provided that it became
available to the receiving party on a non-confidential basis from a source other
than the Defendant or its affiliates, provided that such source is not bound by a
confidentiality agreement with or other obligation of secrecy to a Defendant or
its affiliates;
c. that in the case of a culpable violation, the court may impose a recurring penalty
payment on the obligated party for each violation and enforce it immediately;
The judge-rapporteur by way of a preliminary order dated 7 February 2024 granted access to the
unredacted version of said documents exclusively to the claimant’s authorised representatives and
their assistants pending a final decision upon the confidentiality request and invited the claimant
to comment.
In response, the claimant submitted that the information allegedly being confidential in nature
failed to be of such quality, that a restriction to three employees was not justifiable on the facts of
the case at hand and characterized the restrictions to be imposed upon claimant’s employees
under item 3 of defendants’ request to be disproportionate.
Accordingly, claimant requests:
A. As a main request, to dismiss all Requests of the Request of Protection of Confidential
Information of February 6th, 2024.
B. As a subsidiary request,
I. should the Court in principle find a fixed limitation of employees of the Claimant
justified, to grant the Claimant the right to provide access to the confidential in-
formation to further employees upon request.
II. to grant access to the information specified in Request 1 of the Request for Pro-
tection of Confidential Information of February 6th, 2024 to any private expert,
upon request.
III. to otherwise dismiss the Requests of the Request for Protection of Confidential
Information of February 6th, 2024.
C. As a further subsidiary request,
I. to grant access to the information specified in Request 1 of the Request for Pro-
tection of Confidential Information of February 6th, 2024 to the following nine
employees of the Claimant:
 Ms. … , Intellectual Property Legal Division
 Mr. … , Intellectual Property Legal Division
 Mr. … , Manager, Intellectual Property Technology Division
 Mr. … , Senior Manager, Intellectual Property Technology Division
 Mr. … , Intellectual Property Technology Division
 Mr. … , Manager, Graphic Communication Laboratory
 Mr. … , Manager, Synthetic Organic Chemistry Laboratory
 Mr. … , Senior Manger, GC Business
 Mr. … , Senior Manager, GC Business
and to grant the Claimant the right to provide access to the confidential infor-
mation to further employees upon request.
II. to grant access to the information specified in Request 1 of the Request for Pro-
tection of Confidential Information of February 6th, 2024 to any private expert
upon request.
III. to otherwise dismiss the Requests of the Request for Protection of Confidential
Information of February 6th, 2024.
D. As a further subsidiary request,
I. to grant access to the information specified in Request 1 of the Request for Pro-
tection of Confidential Information of February 6th, 2024 to the following three
employees of the Claimant:
 Mr. … , Manager, Intellectual Property Technology Div.
 Ms. … , Intellectual Property Legal Div.
 Mr. … , Manager, Graphic Communication Laboratory
and to grant the Claimant the right to provide access to the confidential infor-
mation to further employees upon request.
II. to grant access to the information specified in Request 1 of the Request for Pro-
tection of Confidential Information of February 6th, 2024 to any private expert
upon request.
III. to otherwise dismiss the Requests of the Request for Protection of Confidential
Information of February 6th, 2024.
The judge-rapporteur – in a further preliminary order dated 15 February 2024 – invited the de-
fendants to comment to claimant’s submissions and requests.
The defendants answered by reiterating their requests for protection of confidentiality, demanded
to reject claimant’s requests because granting unlimited access or access to the group of
employees contained in the subsidiary requests was unacceptable. Furthermore, they put forward
concerns with regard to the individual natural persons named by claimant. However, the
defendants clarified that they do not oppose involvement of external private experts.
In a further preliminary order dated 26 February 2024 the judge-rapporteur therefore allowed
access to such private experts and modified the initial order accordingly. Moreover, claimant was
invited to justify why access to the information has to be granted to more than three employees.
Both parties were invited to comment.
Claimant responded by setting out in detail why the nine persons individually named had to be
granted access to the allegedly confidential information to enable claimant to comment with
sufficient substance to the submissions of defendant regarding its prior use right defence, insisting
on the necessity to have persons from claimant’s R & D department to get involved and reiterated
its legal arguments.
The respondents answered by requesting further to their initial requests:
9. to order that the access to information under Item 1 for the natural persons from the
Plaintiff to be named shall only be provided by the Plaintiff’s legal representatives to
the employees named in the pre-Order through the following means:
- Granting access via a digital data room hosted by Plaintiff’s legal representative
or by a third party appointed by the Plaintiff and approved by both parties that
solely allows viewing and physical printing with a watermark and prevents down-
loading, copying, forwarding or screenshots of the displayed information
whereby access to the digital data room ends after the final termination of the
proceedings or
- Physical delivery of watermarked hard copies, which hard copies and any printed
copies from the digital data room may not be copied physically or scanned elec-
tronically;
10. to order that any hard copy or electronic copy of the information under Item 1. and
summaries or notes relating to information under Item 1. shall be destroyed, deleted,
or returned to the Defendants by the Plaintiff after the final termination of the pro-
ceedings. This shall not apply to the Plaintiff’s legal representative to the extent that
this provision conflicts with professional conduct relating to retention obligations;
11. to order that the access to the confidential information to the persons to be named
shall be granted only after the expiry of a reasonable period of at least 5 working days
from the issuing of the final order;
12. to order – in the event, that the final order is issued by the panel and not by the judge-
rapporteur or the presiding judge – that the final order may be subject to appeal under
Rule 220.2 RoP UPCA.
and justified their additional requests.
In his last preliminary order dated 7 March 2024 the judge-rapporteur outlined an intended final
order granting the nine named employees of claimant access to the allegedly confidential
information and invited the parties to comment.
The Defendants took advantage of this opportunity and requested to the previous request under
item 9 in light of an order recently issued by the Düsseldorf Local Divisions (UPC_CFI_463/2024,
App_8500/2024, Order issued on 11 March 2024):
13. to order the Plaintiff to take appropriate measures to ensure that the information
obtained by the named employees that is subject to this confidentiality order remains
confidential and is not used outside of these proceedings. In particular, the Plaintiff
must ensure that the information subject to the confidentiality obligation is only
contained in secure electronic files at the Plaintiff to which only the named employees
have access. Insofar as the information subject to the confidentiality obligation is
printed by one of the named employees, suitable measures must be taken to ensure
that only the named persons have access to these printouts.
For the sake of completeness, the details of the orders as well as the facts and arguments
contained in the parties’ written submissions are hereby included by way of reference. All orders
issued in the parallel proceedings between the parties pending at the Mannheim and the
Düsseldorf Local Division have been aligned in an attempt to arrive at a harmonized resolution of
the legal issues concerned.

GROUNDS OF THE ORDER:
I.
The panel decides the matter at hand upon request by the judge-rapporteur under R. 331.2 RoP.
II.
When deciding the application of the defendants to grant protection for the allegedly confidential
information, the court has to weigh the right of a party to have unlimited access to the documents
contained in the file, which guarantees its fundamental right to be heard, against the interest of
the opposing party to have its confidential information protected. Both fundamental principles
have to be balanced against each other on the instant facts of the particular case. Whereas certain
guidelines how this balance can be struck may be developed, a schematic solution is not possible.
1.
Art. 56(2) UPCA stipulates that the court shall take due account of the interest of the parties and
shall, before making an order, give any party the opportunity to be heard, unless this is incompat-
ible with the effective enforcement of such order. Furthermore, Art. 76(2) UPCA points out that the parties must have had an opportunity to present their comments in the course of the proceed-
ings before the UPC.
Art. 58 UPCA on the other hand sets out that the court may order that the collection and use of
evidence in proceedings before it be restricted or prohibited or that access to such evidence be
restricted to specific persons to protect trade secrets, personal data or other confidential informa-
tion of a party to the proceedings or of a third party, or to prevent an abuse of evidence. Therefore
the Agreement also pays attention to the legitimate interest of a party that its confidential infor-
mation is to be protected as far as the opponent’s right to be heard allows.
According to R. 262A.1 RoP a party may therefore make an application to the court for an order
that certain information contained in its pleadings or the collection and use of evidence in procee-
dings may be restricted or prohibited or that access to such information or evidence be restricted
to specific persons. The application may be allowed by the court considering in particular whether
the grounds relied upon by the applicant for the order significantly outweigh the interest of the
other party to have full access to the information and evidence in question (R. 262A.5 RoP). The
number of persons which are granted access to such information or evidence shall be no greater
than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of the parties to the legal proceedings
to an effective remedy and to a fair trial, and shall include, at least, one natural person from each
party and the respective lawyers or other representatives of those parties to the legal proceedings
(R. 262A.6 RoP).
2.
The Agreement and the Rules of Procedure thereby show that on principle a party to a proceeding
before the UPC has an unlimited right to have resort to the contents of the file and the information
submitted by its opponent. Being able to digest the facts and arguments put forward by the
opposing party is an indispensable prerequisite which enables the party concerned to develop its
own arguments and therefore ensures the fundamental right to be heard before it has to accept a
decision by the court. The court’s power to finally and with binding effect decide on behalf of the
parties upon their matter is only vested upon the court once the right to be heard has been respec-
ted. In consequence, any limitation of the free access to the file has to be justified.
3.
A party seeking protection for confidential information, therefore, has – in a first step – to put
forward sufficiently substantiated arguments, why it believes the information concerned is to be
protected. It is therefore not enough to have resort to general circumstances such as there being
competition between the parties to the dispute. For the court to be able to assess whether it may
limit a party’s access to the file, it has to be furnished with concrete arguments which make it
sufficiently plausible that the facts which are sought to be protected are confidential in nature.
Where a party fails to submit sufficient arguments, a limitation in access by the opposing party has
to be denied. The court has to be put in a position to understand, why the applicant believes that
the concrete information to be protected is vulnerable and confidential. It is therefore necessary
to substantiate with regard to each redacted part of the written submissions, why this explicit part
of the submission amounts to confidential information.
4.
Once adequate explanation in that regard has been received, it is then for the court to decide,
which extent of certainty has to be reached for the court to believe that the applicant’s allegations
are true. In this context the directive (EU) 2016/943 of the European Parliament and of the Council
of 8 June 2016 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade
secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure (hereinafter: “trade secrets directive”) oftentimes is also referred to in patent matters. Whereas the directive may serve as a
general point of reference in order to determine the level and scope of protection of trade secrets
throughout the European Union, still such reference is to be made with due diligence. It is to be
pointed out that the necessary scope of protection of confidential information may differ with
regard to the nature of the dispute lying before the court. Whereas in a proceeding, in which a
claimant applies for certain measures in order to prevent or obtain redress for the unlawful
acquisition, use or disclosure of their trade secret, i.e. in an proceeding where the dispute centres
around the question, whether the information concerned amounts to a trade secret, it may be
sufficient to determine in line with Art. 9(1) of the directive whether that information is a trade
secret or at least an “alleged trade secret” to issue an order. This can be justified so as to avoid
that the main substance matter – does the information in fact represent a trade secret or not – is
not already to be decided upon prematurely in the context of the procedural protective order. Still,
it may be significantly different scenario, where the parties concerned are entangled in a patent
infringement matter and in that context alone make reference to confidential information in order
to support their legal arguments. Accordingly, the necessary level of persuasion that the
information is confidential in nature may differ having due regard to the substance matter of the
dispute.
5.
In the case lying before the court, the defendants put forward information they consider to be
confidential in order to support their non-infringement argument that they benefit from a right
based on prior use of the invention under Art. 28 UPCA. Therefore, the dispute does not centre
around an alleged unlawful acquisition, use or disclosure of a trade secret, but is about an alleged
patent infringement. The defendants’ application under R. 262A RoP is a related proceeding to the
main proceeding, which is the patent infringement case. In such a procedural context it will in
principle – except for situations of exceptional character – be sufficient for the court to arrive at
an ample degree of certainty that the information is confidential. It then depends on the context
of the allegations submitted, whether the court deems it appropriate or even necessary to explore
the arguments in even more detail, e.g. by taking evidence in case there is dispute amongst the
parties whether or not the information in fact is confidential. This has to be balanced against the
right of the parties to a swift procedure as justice delayed is justice denied.
Taking into consideration on the instant facts that the counterarguments submitted by the defen-
dants against the alleged infringement of the patent rights of claimant are largely built on the prior
use right defence, it is of imminent importance to further the written stage of the proceedings
which is still ongoing. Pending a final decision of the court upon the protection of the information
submitted by the defendants and the confidentiality ring to be implemented for the sake of the
proceedings, the claimant is not able to sufficiently reply to the defendants’ arguments.
Whereas initially the allegations of the defendants lacked a sufficient degree of substantiation, the
defendants then explained in adequate detail why the highlighted in-formation contained in its
brief, which has been put forward to underpin its arguments, relate to merely internal
circumstances, which had not been shared with the public or competitors in the respective
industry sector alike.
Therefore the grounds relied upon by the defendants calling for protection of their in-formation
significantly outweigh the interest for the claimant to have full and unlimited access to the
information and evidence in question.
6.
In a further step, the court has to strike a balance between the adequate level of protection of said
confidential information and the right of the claimant to have sufficient access to the information
in order to exercise its right to be heard.
In this context, R. 262A.6 RoP establishes with all desirable clarity as a ground rule of paramount
importance that at least one natural person from each party and the respective lawyers or other
representatives are to be granted access in order to ensure a fair trial. The provision therefore
reflects the spirit of the trade secret directive, which also demands for access of at least one nat-
ural person from each of the parties and their respective representatives in order to guarantee the
fundamental right to a fair trial (see recital 25 and Art. 9 (2) of the trade secrets directive). This has
been an express decision by the Member States of the European Union which is to be respected
by the UPC (Art. 20, 24(1)(a) UPCA). Whereas the proposal for the directive (COM (2013) 813 final)
foresaw in its Art. 8(2) an in-camera procedure, this element has been erased due to fundamental
concerns raised by the majority of EU Member States that such a procedure impairs the party’s
right to be heard. Before this background, the arguments of the defendants referring to a deviating
national practice in the Netherlands allowing for attorneys’ eyes-only confidentiality clubs on the
basis of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure are bound to fail as this procedural law is inapplicable
here and counter to the sources of law to be respected by the UPC as construed by the panel.
7.
When deciding upon the level of restriction, again the circumstances of the case are to be taken
into consideration. Whereas in some cases a restriction may be more important to safeguard the
confidential information concerned, in other cases the right to full access to the files of a party
trumps the interest of protection. Therefore the argument of the defendants that access should
be restricted to three natural persons, which it presents as a common ground argument, is undif-
ferentiated. The information for which the defendants seek protection concern a prior use right,
which defendants allege to have acquired in 2017. In consequence, the facts submitted in this
context – except for information in the context of enforcement security – relate to seven year old
business practice. Hence, here the case as presented calls for a considerable amount of reasoning
on the side of the defendants, why such information – which claimant describes as “historic” – still
needs protection and why it – if disclosed to the claimant – would put claimant at an unfair and
unjustified advantage as a competitor and would endanger the actual business of the defendants,
if known by its competitor to date. Even more, the defendants do not even market the respective
product anymore. In such a setting it appears to be a disproportionate burden upon the claimant
to reduce the number of persons being able to assist the representatives in arguing the case before
the court too strictly. Moreover, it has to be taken into consideration that only some parts of the
confidential information are of importance to certain groups of persons the claimant request to
be granted access. Whereas business figures will be more valuable information for claimant’s em-
ployees in its business department, technical details of defendants’ products and production de-
velopment cycles appear to be of less interest and vice versa with regard to its employees working
in its R & D department.
Before this background the defendants cannot be heard to limit the number of natural persons to
three out of the five named persons they do not oppose to. The claimant, also having regard to
the complexity of the dispute, has a legitimate interest to grant access to all five persons, i.e. the
respective group leaders and their supporting assistants.
8.
Furthermore, defendants cannot be heard with their request, that employees from claimant’s R &
D department must not be granted access. Claimant sets out in detail with persuasive arguments
why it is necessary to exchange with these employees exactly, who are in a position to comment on defendants’ allegations before the background of the technical expertise in and knowledge of
the industry sector. In a dispute revolving around technical aspects it is of fundamental importance
that a party may have resort to technically qualified employees in order to exercise its right to be
heard. Only in rare circumstances where e.g. cutting-edge technical improvements are at stake,
which put the proprietor in a significant pole position on the market, further restrictions may be
considered to be proportionate. This is not the case here.
9.
Furthermore, the requests of the defendants to set out in further detail, in which way the claimant
has to organize itself in order to prevent the breach of the court’s protective order have to be
rejected. The information is sufficiently protected by the order of the court without such detailed
measures to be ordered. A breach of the order will result in severe penalty payments. This fact
alone will cause claimant to implement appropriate internal measures of protection. The more
detailed instructions in the Düsseldorf Local Division’s order of 11 March 2024
(UPC_CFI_563/2024, App_8500/2024) are case-specific and cannot be generalised. Moreover
claimant is better equipped to decide upon such measures than the court or the defendants, which
both have insufficient knowledge of the internal organisation and security policy of the claimant
which may already be in place and may be used to this avail.
The same applies to the request to order that any hard copy or electronic copy of the information
under Item 1. and summaries or notes relating to information under Item 1. shall be destroyed,
deleted, or returned to the defendants by the claimant after the final termination of the proceed-
ings as the information may e.g. be needed in the course of seeking enforcement of the orders and
decisions of the court so that the claimant still has a legitimate interest to be in possession and
make of use of the information.
10.
Finally, the panel – in accordance with the view expressed by the judge-rapporteur in his prelimi-
nary order dated 7 February 2024 – rejects the requests of the defendants to impose upon the
named employees to refrain from getting involved in research and development, pricing or any
other competitive decision making, and shall not be involved in prosecution of patent applications
for a period of 5 years after the end of the present proceedings (including potential appeal pro-
ceedings) as manifestly disproportionate on the instant facts.
III.
As the court’s orders may provide for periodic penalty payments payable to the court in the event
that a party fails to comply with the terms of the order (R. 354.3 RoP), the panel finds it appropriate
to include an explicit reference to such power of the court in its order.
IV.
Since the questions decided upon in the case at hand are far from being well settled in the newly
established Unified Patent Court,
leave to appeal is granted.
So as not to create a fait accompli, the panel decides not to grant access for the further six natural
persons named by the claimant, which are in dispute, before the time period for bringing an appeal
and an appropriate time period to bring an application for suspensive effect before the Court of
Appeal before it has elapsed. The court has seen that claimant objects to such an element of the
order but finds that – at least as long as the applicable standards within the Rules of Procedure of
the UPC are not sufficiently settled – such order is inevitable to safeguard defendants’ interests to
protect its confidential information. On the contrary it appears to be in the interest to further the
proceedings to already grant three out of the five natural persons named by claimant and against
which the defendants do not raise concerns immediate access to the information concerned in
order to them being enabled to assist claimant’s representatives in preparing its reply.

ORDER:
1. Access to the unredacted version of the Statement of defence dated 6 February 2024,
containing confidential information as highlighted in grey therein, and to the unre-
dacted version of Exhibits FBD-T 9 to 15a and to the unredacted version of Exhibit FBD-
T 27, which is hereby classified as confidential, shall be restricted exclusively to
a) the claimant’s authorised representatives and their assistants;
b) any private expert upon request;
c) with immediate effect to the following employees of the claimant:
 Ms. … , Intellectual Property Legal Division
 Mr. … , Manager, Intellectual Property Technology Division
 Mr. … , Intellectual Property Technology Division.
d) Access is only granted to the following further six employees of the claimant after
the period of 15 days for bringing an appeal under R. 220.2 RoP and an additional
week, after having brought the appeal, during which an application for suspen-
sive effect may be lodged, has elapsed – unless it is otherwise communicated by
the parties to be appropriate at an earlier point of time:
 Mr. … , Intellectual Property Legal Division
 Mr. … , Senior Manager, Intellectual Property Technology
Division
 Mr. … , Manager, Graphic Communication Laboratory
 Mr. … , Manager, Synthetic Organic Chemistry Laboratory
 Mr. … , Senior Manager, GC Business
 Mr. … , Senior Manager, GC Business.
2. The information referred to in paragraph 1 shall be treated as confidential by the
claimant’s representatives and their assistants, any private experts and the employees
referred to in paragraph 1. Such information shall not be used or disclosed outside of
these court proceedings, except to the extent that it has come to the knowledge of the
receiving party outside of these proceedings, provided that the receiving party has
obtained it on a non-confidential basis from a source other than the defendant or its
affiliates, provided that such source is not bound by a confidentiality agreement with
or other obligation of secrecy with the defendant or its affiliates.
This obligation shall also apply to the claimant.
The foregoing persons shall also be under an obligation to the claimant to maintain the
confidentiality of the information contained in the unredacted versions of the
foregoing documents.
This obligation of confidentiality shall continue to apply after the termination of these
proceedings.
3. In the event of a culpable breach of this order, the court may impose a penalty pay-
ment for each violation which will be determined having regard to the circumstances
of the individual breach.
4. All further requests of the parties are hereby rejected.
5. Leave to appeal is hereby granted.

DETAILS OF THE ORDER:
App_6761/2024 related to the main proceeding ACT_578607/2023
UPC-Number: UPC_CFI_355/2023
Subject of the Proceedings: Patent infringement action
Issued in Düsseldorf on 27 March 2024

NAMES AND SIGNATURES
Presiding Judge Thomas
Legally qualified Judge Dr. Thom
Legally qualified Judge Lopes

Information about appeal:
The present order may either – be the subject of an appeal by any party which has been unsuc-
cessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions together with the appeal against the final decision
of the Court of First Instance in the main proceedings, or – be appealed by any party which has
been unsuccessful, in whole or in part, in its submissions at the Court of Appeal with the leave of
the Court of First Instance within 15 days of service of the Court of First Instance’s decision to that
effect (Art. 73(2)(b) UPCA, R. 220.2, 224.1(b) RoP).