ARTICLE
17 June 2025

CD Paris, June 9, 2025, Order On File Inspection, UPC_CFI_309/2023

BP
Bardehle Pagenberg

Contributor

BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
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...
France Intellectual Property

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.

Mondaq uses cookies on this website. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies as set out in our Privacy Policy.

Learn More