Infederation Ltd v Google LLC & Ors [2020] EWHC 657 (Ch) (18 March 2020)

Infederation Ltd v Google LLC & Ors [2020] EWHC 657 (Ch) (18 March 2020)

Where a party relies on highly technical confidential evidence in support of a dispositive application, the opposing party is entitled to have its independent expert admitted to the relevant confidentiality rings to ensure a fair hearing, unless the party relying on such evidence withdraws it. The need for fair process outweighs the risk of inadvertent misuse, provided appropriate undertakings are given.

Citation
[2020] EWHC 657 (Ch)
Parties
Claimant: INFEDERATION LIMITED; Defendant: GOOGLE LLC; Defendant: GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED; Defendant: GOOGLE UK LIMITED
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 March 2020
Procedural Posture
Competition Law Claim (hybrid Follow on and Stand Alone) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Confidentiality Ring Admission
Outcome
Conditional order: Mr Klöckner to be admitted to LEO and RLEO rings unless Google withdraws reliance on the relevant technical evidence; otherwise, application granted for his admission subject to undertakings.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Rings, Disclosure, Article 102 TFEU, Competition Act 1998 Section 18, Abuse of Dominant Position, Expert Evidence, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Competition Law Civil Procedure Confidentiality Rings Disclosure Article 102 TFEU Competition Act 1998 Section 18 Abuse of Dominant Position Expert Evidence +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

INFEDERATION LIMITED

Claimant

GOOGLE LLC

Defendant

GOOGLE IRELAND LIMITED

Defendant

GOOGLE UK LIMITED

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Competition Law Claim (hybrid Follow on and Stand Alone) / Interlocutory Application Regarding Confidentiality Ring Admission

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an independent expert (Mr Klöckner) should be admitted to the LEO and RLEO confidentiality rings to access highly confidential documents in competition proceedings involving alleged abuse of dominance by Google.
  2. 2 Whether Google's reliance on technical evidence designated as LEO/RLEO justifies such admission, balancing the need for fair hearing against protection of trade secrets.

Ratio Decidendi

Where a party relies on highly technical confidential evidence in support of a dispositive application, the opposing party is entitled to have its independent expert admitted to the relevant confidentiality rings to ensure a fair hearing, unless the party relying on such evidence withdraws it. The need for fair process outweighs the risk of inadvertent misuse, provided appropriate undertakings are given.

Court Disposition

Conditional order: Mr Klöckner to be admitted to LEO and RLEO rings unless Google withdraws reliance on the relevant technical evidence; otherwise, application granted for his admission subject to undertakings.

Orders

  • Google given time to decide whether to withdraw reliance on technical evidence designated LEO/RLEO for its pending application; if not, Mr Klöckner to be admitted to LEO and RLEO rings until further order, subject to confidentiality undertakings and consent to jurisdiction.
  • Google not permitted to serve recast or alternative evidence without court permission; Foundem may renew application if new evidence is served.