Canon Kabushiki Kaisha v. Katun Germany GmbH a.o., Case no. UPC_CFI_351/2024 UPC_CFI_595/2024
On 18 February 2026, before the Düsseldorf Local Division, Katun applied under R. 262A RoP for a confidentiality order in respect of information to be disclosed pursuant to an earlier Order. They sought to restrict access to Canon’s legal representatives and two designated Canon employees, to impose a general prohibition on use of the information outside the proceedings (subject to limited exceptions for damages and enforcement purposes), and to impose a three-year bar on business negotiations with Katun’s customers for those granted access.
Canon opposed the application in its entirety, arguing that R. 262A RoP did not apply to information disclosed pursuant to an enforceable court decision (as opposed to information in pleadings or evidence), that the application was in any event filed too late, and that the proposed restrictions were disproportionately broad.
Judge-Rapporteur Dr Schumacher dismissed the application as inadmissible on two grounds.
First, on timing: following the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Kodak v. Fujifilm (UPC_CoA_699/2025, Order of 14 October 2025), where a defendant can reasonably foresee that an adverse decision will require disclosure of confidential information, the confidentiality application must be made during the proceedings on the merits. Here, the Defendants could clearly have anticipated the need for confidentiality protection — the information they sought to protect was precisely the information Canon had sought in the merits proceedings. No explanation was offered for the failure to raise the issue earlier.
Second, on substance: even if a post-judgment application were permissible, the Defendants’ requests went beyond access restrictions and sought to limit how the information could be used. The Court, again following Kodak v. Fujifilm, held that there is no implicit limitation on the use of information obtained pursuant to an Art. 67 UPCA order. Imposing such restrictions would affect the substantive scope of Canon’s right to information — a matter of substantive law that must be addressed in the merits proceedings and reflected, if appropriate, in the operative part of the decision itself. It cannot be achieved retrospectively through enforcement proceedings.
