Med-El v Zhejiang & Anor (UPC/CFI/688/2025)
Decision date:
30 September 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- Med-El had initiated infringement proceedings against the defendants in the Hamburg LD. The parties subsequently reached a settlement. As such, the parties requested that the court: i) confirm the settlement and that the decision may be enforced as a final decision of the court (Article 79 UPCA and Rule 365.1 RoP); ii) keep the details of the settlement confidential (Rule 365.2 RoP); and iii) not make a cost decision.
- Med-El also submitted an application under Rule 262.2 RoP, requesting that the court order that the details of the settlement agreement shall be treated as confidential, and that the non-redacted copy of the settlement agreement shall not be published or otherwise made available to the public.
- Under Rules 365.2 and 365.3 RoP, the court may order that details of the settlement are confidential and that the decision with only a redacted version of the settlement is entered into the register. In this case, the settlement agreement contained confidential information and therefore the conditions for confirming the settlement and the inclusion of a redacted version in the register were fulfilled.
- However, following the Court of Appeal's jurisprudence, the Hamburg LD held that it would not decide on Med-El's Rule 262.2 RoP request unless or until a request was made by a member of the public under Rule 262.1(b).
- The court confirmed the settlement and that the decision may be enforced as the final decision of the court. It also refrained from making a cost decision on the basis of the request.
Issue
Curious about how UPC decisions might impact your business? Have questions about the UPC?
Reach out to our patents team for expert guidance and support.