Infederation Ltd v Google LLC & Ors

Infederation Ltd v Google LLC & Ors

Where a party relies on highly technical and confidential evidence in support of an application that may dispose of significant claims, the opposing party is entitled to have its expert admitted to the relevant confidentiality rings to ensure a fair hearing, unless the party relying on such evidence withdraws those parts of its evidence. The need for expert access outweighs the risk of misuse, provided appropriate undertakings are given.

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 / Interlocutory Application Regarding Confidentiality Ring and Expert Access
Outcome
Conditional order: Google must choose to either withdraw reliance on technical evidence relating to LEO/RLEO documents or permit Mr Klöckner access to those documents under confidentiality undertakings.
Legal Topics
Confidentiality Rings, Disclosure of Evidence, Expert Evidence, Abuse of Dominant Position, Summary Judgment, Strike Out Applications
Competition Law Civil Procedure Confidentiality Rings Disclosure of Evidence Expert Evidence Abuse of Dominant Position Summary Judgment Strike Out Applications

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 / Interlocutory Application Regarding Confidentiality Ring and Expert Access

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the claimant's expert should be admitted to the LEO and RLEO confidentiality rings to access highly confidential documents
  2. 2 Whether Google's reliance on technical evidence necessitates expert access for the claimant
  3. 3 Balancing protection of trade secrets with the right to a fair hearing

Ratio Decidendi

Where a party relies on highly technical and confidential evidence in support of an application that may dispose of significant claims, the opposing party is entitled to have its expert admitted to the relevant confidentiality rings to ensure a fair hearing, unless the party relying on such evidence withdraws those parts of its evidence. The need for expert access outweighs the risk of misuse, provided appropriate undertakings are given.

Court Disposition

Conditional order: Google must choose to either withdraw reliance on technical evidence relating to LEO/RLEO documents or permit Mr Klöckner access to those documents under confidentiality undertakings.

Orders

  • If Google maintains reliance on technical evidence, Mr Klöckner is admitted to the LEO and RLEO rings upon appropriate undertakings, including submission to the court's jurisdiction.
  • If Google withdraws reliance on the relevant evidence, Mr Klöckner is not admitted to the inner rings at this stage.