Key takeaways
Access to pleadings and evidence – balancing public access and confidentiality
The order follows the decision of the Court of Appeal in Ocado v Autostore (10 April 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023, para 43), namely that in a decision on a request under R. 262.1(b) RoP, the interests of a member of the public of obtaining the requested access must be weighed against the interests mentioned in Art. 45 UPCA.
The applicant of the request pursuant to R. 262.1(b) RoP must set out the reasons why it has an interest to obtain the requested access. Here, the applicant argued that he represents various clients in revocation proceedings at the UPC in which comparable subject matter is relevant.
Post-first instance access – shift in the balance of interests
The interest in transparency generally outweighs confidentiality concerns once first-instance proceedings are concluded.
Pending appeals do not justify restricting access to first-instance documents, as the integrity of those proceedings is no longer at risk.
No limitation of access after conclusion of first instance
The Respondent's concern about potential misuse of information did not outweigh the general interest in access.
The Applicant's general interest was deemed sufficient, given the conclusion of the first-instance proceedings.
Leave to appeal and suspension of the effect of the order
The leave to appeal was granted in view of the need to establish a consistent jurisprudence with reference to access to register.
Considering the practical irreversibility of the effects of an order granting (unrestricted) access to court records, it is deemed appropriate to suspend the effects of the present order until the expiration of the deadline for filing an appeal or, if an appeal is filed, until the end of such proceedings.
Division
Central Division Paris
UPC number
UPC_CFI_309/2023, ACT_571669/2023, Application No. 8899/2025
Type of proceedings
Application for inspection of the written pleadings and evidence
Applicant
Meissner Bolte Patentanwälte Rechtsanwälte Partnerschaft mbB
Parties
NJOY Netherlands B.V. (Claimant)
vs.
Juul Labs International, Inc. (Defendant)
Patent(s)
EP 3 498 115
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 45 UPCA
Regulation (EU) 2016/679
Rule 262.1(b), 262.2 RoP
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
