Case Law
Rule 60: Determination of the value-based fee for the Counterclaim for infringement

Court of Appeal - Luxembourg (LU), Order dated 23/07/2024, Progress Maschinen & Automation AG v.AWM Srl, SCHNELL S.p.A (Case/ Registry number: APL_20002/2024, ORD_36778/2024)
Example of decision on the confidentiality of evidences: "Where the evidence may contain confidential information, this entails that the Court must hear the other party before deciding whether and to what extent to disclose the evidence to the applicant. In this context, the Court must give the other party access to the evidence and must provide that party with the opportunity to request the Court to keep certain information confidential and to provide reasons for such confidentiality. If the other party makes such a confidentiality request, the Court must provide the applicant with the opportunity to respond in a manner that respects the potential confidentiality interests of the other party. The Court may do this, for example, by granting access only to the representatives of the applicant whom the Court, pursuant to Rule 196.3(a) RoP, has authorised to be present during the execution of the measures and subject to appropriate terms of non-disclosure.
3. The opportunity for the other party to make a confidentiality request must be distinguished from the remedies available against the order for the preservation of evidence or the inspection of premises, such as the review of an order for preservation of evidence without hearing the defendant pursuant to Rule 197.3 RoP. Therefore, the Court must hear the other party on the request for disclosure even if this party has decided not to file a remedy against the order to preserve evidence or inspect premises. For the same reasons, the failure to apply for a review of an order for the preservation of evidence or for the inspection of premises, cannot not be considered as a tacit approval of the disclosure of evidence."