In this appellate decision by the Unified Patent Court, the court addressed the protection of confidential information within a case involving Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson (Ericsson) and ASUSTeK Computer Inc. (ASUS). Ericsson appealed a decision that rejected its proposal for an "external eyes only" (EEO) confidentiality regime regarding confidentiality of documents, arguing that certain license agreements should require stricter confidentiality measures.

ASUS resisted this more restrictive regime, arguing it would infringe on their right to a fair trial. The Court of Appeal examined principles around confidential information protection, including the necessity for fair trial rights, proportionality, and potential harm to third parties. The decision emphasized balancing these factors but ultimately did not mandate an EEO regime as requested by Ericsson, instead allowing each party's employee access to confidential information to ensure fair representation. Apple intervened in support of Ericsson, seeking broader confidentiality protections.

The decision underscores the complexity in handling confidential information in patent trials, highlighting the protection interests of all parties, including third-party licensees.