In cases of standard essential patents (SEPs), parties and courts struggle with the confidentiality issues involved. Either already during the negotiations for a license or during litigation, the implementer wishes access to comparable licenses to make sure he does not pay more than his competitors or that more favorable conditions are applied. Meanwhile, the SEP owner needs to contend with his counterparties with whom invariably a Non-Disclosure Agreement is in place. Recently, the Mannheim Local Division (LD) in the first SEP/FRAND decision by the UPC held that an SEP owner should substantiate the non-discriminatory nature of his offer. In so doing, the court interpreted CJEU Huawei/ZTE, para. 63. The LD in para. 203 did not follow the case law of the Dutch Court of Appeal, which – shortly put – held that at the stage of the license offer by the patentee, no information about the non-discriminatory nature of that offer needs to be given. Rather, the LD in essence followed the European Commission’s (EC) amicus curiae letter. The LD also suggested that if the implementer has questions about the non-discriminatory nature of the offer, he should ask them at that stage and not wait until any proceedings (para. 212). This may involve therefore granting some type of access to comparable licenses at the negotiation phase.