The Bundesgerichtshof attempts to clarify the scope and orders of confidentiality and protection typical before the courts. The retention of confidential information may be a central consideration in intellectual property protection proceedings, in which the opposite party is often a direct competitor and the subject of the dispute is trade secrets and business plans. Protection decisions are an order of the Court of Justice that defines how documents exchanged between the parties are to be implemented. They generally contain terms that define: the number of people to whom the documents can be disclosed; How documents should be identified to indicate confidentiality; How confidentiality disputes should be raised; and, in some cases, better protection of certain documents through a « Counsel`s Eyes Only » provision. The fifth concern of the parties, an argument that Locke J. characterized as concerned, worries the Court of Justice that a judicial decision is considered by the parties more seriously than an agreement. Locke J.A. stated that, if so, parties to mental protection disputes in mental protection and intellectual and intellectual protection in Canada have erroneous impressions of their obligations under the implied rule of undertaking. Locke J.A. indicated that routine issuance of protective orders would perpetuate this misunderstanding of the parties` obligations with respect to the objects found. The confidentiality order for the presentation of material to the Court of Justice contemplates that the Court should consider evidence prior to the issuance of the order and provides that the confidential information is separated by non-confidential information or, if it is not separated, that a version published to the public as it was filed is separated.
The standard order also states that the Court may require a party to explain why the documents are confidential and cannot be sealed and made public. The Court also found that with any change in circumstances, the parties could easily update a safeguard agreement in the same way as a court order, by mutual agreement. If a party does not agree with a proposed amendment, the Court retained the power to adopt a protection decision on the issue at issue, since such an injunction would be necessary at that time and would thus comply with the Sierra Club test. Live Face was visited again in April 2018 at Seedlings v Pfizer, 2018 FC 443 [Seedlings 1], where Prothonotary Tabib again rejected an application for a protection order. It found that the implied rule of engagement confirmed that documents exchanged in the course of a judicial investigation « constitute a business vis-à-vis the Court of Justice, that such information is not used by the parties for purposes other than litigation. » A breach of this obligation would be punishable by non-compliance with the court. Since the Bundesgerichtshof is a legal tribunal and generally cannot deal with contractual issues, the parties` primary concern was the Court`s inability to resolve a dispute over the protection agreement.