Limits of Confidentiality Protection

CA v Deutsche Telekom – LD Munich, 29 July 2026, UPC_CFI_515/2026 and UPC_CFI_1797/2026

Introduction

A party relying on an extract from a larger document does not have to disclose the complete document merely because it seeks confidentiality protection for information contained in the extract.

In a recent decision, the Local Division Munich clarified the meaning of an “unredacted document” under R. 262A.3 RoP. An extract can itself constitute the relevant document for these purposes. The confidentiality procedure is concerned with the information actually introduced into the proceedings, rather than with potentially relevant information contained elsewhere in the underlying document. 

The dispute

In infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings between CA and Deutsche Telekom, Telekom had submitted an extract from a larger document as an exhibit and requested confidentiality protection for information contained in that extract.

CA challenged the confidentiality order. It argued, in essence, that it needed access to the complete underlying document to assess the confidential information in its proper context. Otherwise, according to CA, the requirement to submit an “unredacted document” under R. 262A.3 RoP would effectively be left to the discretion of the party seeking confidentiality protection. 

An extract can itself be the “unredacted document”

The Local Division Munich rejected that approach.

What matters under R. 262A is the material actually introduced into the proceedings. Telekom had relied only on the extract and sought confidentiality protection only for information contained in that extract. The complete underlying document was neither part of the proceedings nor the subject of the confidentiality request. 

Accordingly, an extract from a larger document may itself qualify as the “unredacted document” within the meaning of R. 262A.3 RoP. “Unredacted” does not mean that the document must be complete in a technical sense. It is sufficient that the document contains the information or evidence for which access is to be restricted. 

Nor does R. 262A.3 give the other party a right to inspect the complete document from which the extract was taken. The purpose of the provision is to enable that party to comment meaningfully on whether the particular information for which protection is sought is confidential. For that purpose, the complete documentary context will generally not be required. 

But the complete document may still become relevant

Importantly, the Court did not say that selectively submitting extracts can never have procedural consequences.

Whether a party sufficiently fulfils its burden of pleading by relying only on an extract may raise a separate question of the secondary burden of pleading, depending on the circumstances of the individual case. That question, however, was not before the Court in the confidentiality proceedings. The Court also noted that CA had meanwhile filed an application for production of evidence under R. 190 RoP – a route which appeared more appropriate for obtaining the complete document. 

Takeaways

• R. 262A RoP does not provide a route to obtain parts of a document that have not been introduced into the proceedings. 
• An extract can itself constitute the relevant “unredacted document” under R. 262A.3 RoP. 
• If the complete document is needed, R. 190 RoP may be the more appropriate route.

To the decision   To the Blog Overview