Ona Patents v Google Ireland & Anor (UPC_CFI_100/2024 & UPC_CFI_411/2024)
Decision date:
09 September 2025
Osborne Clarke summary
- This decision concerned Ona Patents' application for a confidentiality request relating to an exhibit to a statement. Most of the confidential material consisted of third‑party contracts subject to confidentiality clauses, which had not been disclosed in full, and internal business documents not publicly disclosed.
- The judge-rapporteur in the Düsseldorf LD granted the application, stating that Ona Patents "did not request confidentiality for anything that the Defendants would not have requested if they had been ordered to present further facts and evidence".
- In judicial proceedings, access to documents containing confidential business information may, upon request, be restricted to a limited number of persons. Here, access on the defendants’ side was confined to their authorised representatives and staff (including experts and team members) and specified named individuals.
- The court also declined to permit the disclosure of the confidential information to the Munich District Court in parallel proceedings, stating that the mere allegation of similar arguments and the high relevance of documents in parallel proceedings did not justify waiving confidentiality.
- The requirements of Rule 262A RoP and Article 58 UPCA were met and a protective order was issued, with any culpable breach resulting in a penalty payment to be determined on a case by case basis.
- The court corrected this order on 10 September 2025 to explicitly clarify the documents classified as confidential within the meaning of Article 58 UPCA and Rule 262.2 RoP.
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.