Network System Technologies v Qualcomm (UPC_CoA_221/2025, UPC_CoA_222/2025 & UPC_CoA_223/2025)
Decision date:
03 July 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- NST filed three patent infringement actions against Qualcomm before the Munich LD. Qualcomm filed an application for protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in relation to specific technical and economic information to which NST had requested access in its infringement actions. The judge-rapporteur had granted Qualcomm's application, restricting access to this information to NST's UPC representative, two of its employees and one technical expert. The judge-rapporteur rejected NST's request to allow four US attorneys access to the information. On review under Rule 233 RoP, the Munich LD amended this order to include one US attorney.
- Both parties appealed the first instance decision – Qualcomm appealed to set aside the order so far as it included the US attorney and NST appealed to grant access to another US attorney. The Court of Appeal dismissed each of the cross-appeals.
- The Court of First Instance has a margin of discretion when deciding whether a particular person is granted access to confidential information under Rule 262A RoP and it is only for the Court of Appeal to set aside an order or decide afresh if the Court of First Instance disregarded legal principles in exercising its discretion. This was not the case here.
- The Court of Appeal held that the number of persons who can access restricted information should be no greater than necessary and that the parties should have discretion to choose which attorneys it wishes to engage to assist with proceedings. Here, NST failed to demonstrate that it was necessary for more than one US attorney to have access to the confidential information.
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.