Case by Case | Court of Appeal confirms that unprotected disclosures cannot later be made confidential and clarifies strict limits on confidentiality under r. 262 and 262A RoP

About this episode

Chloe Dickson discusses a Court of Appeal decision regarding confidentiality of disclosures in patent infringement cases.

Chloe Dickson talks you through a decision concerning EOFlow’s request for an order that certain information on the extent to which it had committed acts of infringement of Insulet’s patent be designated as confidential and withheld from public inspection. If you have any feedback, questions, or comments, please email us at upcpodcast@bristows.com. Find all the episodes as we release them here. Follow us on LinkedIn.

People in this episode

Host: Chloe Dickson

Topics covered

• confidentiality
• court decisions
• patent infringement
• legal analysis
• business law

Keywords

• confidential disclosures
• Court of Appeal
• patent law
• EOFlow
• Insulet
• legal proceedings
• confidentiality limits

Mentioned in this episode

Organizations: EOFlow, Insulet

More episodes of You, me & the UPC

• Case by Case | Düsseldorf Local Division grants Yangtze Confidentiality Order against itself to comply with US export controls · June 12, 2026 · 3 min
• Case by Case | Hamburg Local Division penalises defendants for website and marketplace offerings despite disclaimers · June 12, 2026 · 4 min
• Case by Case | Brussels Local Division sets costs ceiling for PI proceedings and clarifies waiver and interpretation of cost rules · June 5, 2026 · 3 min
• Case by case | The Hague Local Division allows targeted access to samples for infringement testing · June 5, 2026 · 2 min
• Case by Case | Düsseldorf Local Division rejects request for preliminary injunction amid doubts over infringement and urgency · May 29, 2026 · 5 min
• Case by Case | Munich Local Division confirms that FRAND security cannot be relied on to resist security for costs · May 29, 2026 · 4 min