UPC_CoA_930/2025, order of 29 January 2026 (1)
The Court of Appeal held that a party must file an application pursuant to rule 262A of the Rules of Procedure (“RoP”) if it wishes to keep confidential information it has been ordered to disclose in proceedings. Absent such an application, there is no implied confidentiality of documents disclosed in UPC proceedings.
The wider action between the parties concerns the infringement of Insulet’s patent covering fluid delivery devices for therapeutic liquids. In May 2025, the Court of Appeal of the UPC granted Insulet a preliminary injunction and, inter alia, ordered EOFlow to disclose i) information about the origin and distribution of the infringing devices in UPC states and ii) the identity of any third parties involved in the production or distribution of the affected devices in UPC states.(2) EOFlow claimed that these documents had been filed as “HC” (Highly Confidential) on the Case Management System but, crucially, EOFlow did not file a corresponding application under r. 262A RoP that information in these documents be restricted.
The present order arises from an appeal of a December 2025 decision of the Milan Central Division imposing penalties on EOFlow for breaches of the interim injunction.
Notably, in the first instance proceedings, Insulet had relied on business information that EOFlow had been ordered to disclose in earlier preliminary injunction proceedings. Insulet was not treating this business information as being confidential. EOFlow argued that its, and its distribution partner’s, information disclosed under the previous order was confidential and Insulet’s use of such information in subsequent proceedings should not be allowed.
The Court of Appeal held that an application under r. 262A RoP is essential where a party wishes to maintain the confidentiality of information it has been ordered to disclose. No implicit obligations of confidentiality exist. As Insulet has missed the 14-day window in which a party must make an application to maintain confidentiality in their documents after they have disclosed them to the court, the information was no longer confidential and could be used freely by Insulet. (The court reserved its decision on EOFlow’s other requests regarding third party access to the information.)
This case demonstrates that it is imperative for parties to make applications under r. 262A RoP where they wish to maintain confidentiality in information and documents they are ordered to disclose in UPC proceedings. Failure to do so will likely result in the confidentiality in those materials being lost, and may allow the opposing party to use information gathered in UPC proceedings elsewhere without limitation.