Interested in more of this? Stay tuned and subscribe here for weekly updates.
On the go, multi-tasking or just prefer to listen? “Willem Hoyng’s UPC Unfiltered AI Podcast” – your weekly, AI-generated podcast discussing Willem Hoyng’s commentary on UPC case law of last week, offers a convenient alternative. Listen on Spotify or Apple Podcasts.
16 May 2025
Local Division Düsseldorf, DDP v Greenchemicals
Confidential Information
Facts
A demand for protection of confidential information per R. 262A RoP.
The defendant requests that the proposed penalty for a culpable breach be dropped.
Decision of the Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
The JR imposed a penalty in case of culpable breach. If the information is public, then the order is not applicable. The defendants have not shown this to be the case because the applicant argued that its licensees do not communicate agreed prices to their customers, and the defendants did not demonstrate otherwise.
Comment
- In my view, this is a model standard order. The access to the information is restricted to “the representatives” (and one named person of the defendant). The representatives are held responsible for a culpable breach by their team members. So there is a certain flexibility as to who the representatives want to use as team members, as not all team members have to be named. The JR furthermore specifically states that the obligation to maintain secrecy continues after the end of the case.
- I note that this order does not mean that the information will not be disclosed to a member of the public who is given access to the Register because the claimant did not yet ask for the application of R. 262.2 RoP. However, the claimant has 14 days to do so after a request by a member of the public is made, but it seems more practical to ask for the application of R. 262.2 RoP together with an R. 262A RoP request.
19 May 2025
Local Division Mannheim, Malikie v Discord
Streamlining proceedings
Decision of the Judge-Rapporteur (JR)
In this case, the two defendants belonging to the same group were served on different days more than two months apart. Parties agreed on a date for the Statement of Defence which was longer for one but shorter for the other defendant in order to have the same dates for (all) the written submissions.
The JR ordered according to the agreement of the parties..
Comment
As I have said before, this makes a lot of sense and should be standard practice between representatives.
20 May 2025
Court of Appeal, Chint v Jingao
Suspensive effect
Background