Court of Appeal confirms narrow access to confidential information under Rule 262A

Court of Appeal confirms narrow access to confidential information under Rule 262A – only one US attorney allowed in NST v Qualcomm

UPC_CoA_221/2025, UPC_CoA_222/2025, UPC_CoA_223/2025 – Order of 3 July 2025

The UPC Court of Appeal has handed down another decision clarifying the framework for protecting confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The judgment arose in the context of an SEP dispute between Network Systems Technologies (NST) and Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division.

The central issue: How many US-based attorneys of NST may access Qualcomm’s confidential technical and commercial documents?

Background

NST, a US-based NPE, brought three infringement actions before the Munich Local Division. Qualcomm filed applications under Rule 262A to protect selected evidence from public disclosure. The judge-rapporteur granted access to NST’s UPC representatives, two employees, and one technical expert – but denied access to NST’s US litigation team.

Following review, the panel of the Munich Local Division slightly relaxed that position: one US attorney, Mr. Stringfield, would be permitted access – but not the others. Both sides appealed.

NST argued that its US team, particularly Mr. Krusiewicz (a trained engineer), had been leading the litigation effort since the start and were essential for coordination and strategic input. Qualcomm responded that broadening access increased the risk of cross-use in parallel US litigation and undermined the integrity of UPC confidentiality protections.

Court of Appeal’s findings

The Court acknowledged NST’s right to choose its legal team and noted the pivotal role of lead US counsel. Still, it emphasized that access to confidential information must be limited to what is strictly necessary. The CoA confirmed that:

“The number of NST’s US attorneys authorized to access the confidential information shall not be greater than necessary in order to ensure compliance with the right of both NST and Qualcomm to an effective remedy and to a fair trial.”

It found no error in the lower court’s discretionary decision to limit access to one US attorney – especially since a technical expert with access was already in place. NST’s arguments based on Mr. Krusiewicz’s technical background came too late in the process and were, in any case, unpersuasive in light of the existing safeguards.

The CoA also dismissed Qualcomm’s cross-appeal, rejecting its bid to exclude even Mr. Stringfield.

Takeaways

• Parties may nominate trusted advisors to support UPC representatives, but access to confidential information under Rule 262A remains tightly limited.
• The presence of a technical expert with access weakens the case for granting further access to additional counsel, even if technically qualified.
• Involvement in parallel foreign litigation is not, by itself, grounds to exclude outside counsel from access – provided strict confidentiality safeguards are in place.

To the decision  To the Blog Overview