1. Key takeaways
Public access to file – general principles
As found by the Court of Appeal (see order of 10 April 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023), the general principle laid down in the UPCA is that the register is public and the proceedings are open to the public, unless the balance of interests involved is such that they are to be kept confidential, which means that in such case access to the public is to be denied.
Balance of interest in this case
The applicant requested access to all pleadings and evidence in the revocation action proceedings between Meril Gmbh, Meril Life Sciences Pvt ltd. and Meril Italy s.r.l., and Edwards Lifesciences Corporation.
The applicant stated that he acted (a) as individual person in the role of Board member of SWAT Medical AB and (b) in the role of an investor in medical device technology and (c) in the interest of SWAT Medical AB (named as 1st Co-applicant). According to the appicants SWAT Medical AB is a medical device company within the field of cardiac implant technology. The request was made based on a direct interest and concern as a competitor regarding the validity of the patent of the proceedings with regard to a third party product under development potentially similar to the allegedly infringing products of the defendants and covered upon market entry by the granted claims of the present patent of the proceedings.
The court found that the mere fact of operating in the same field as the patent in dispute is not sufficient to establish a specific interest in the case documents on the part of the applicant. Indeed, it was not adequately alleged, nor much less proven, that the applicants are competitors of the parties to the action, and, as such, concerned with the validity of the patent.
Therefore, the applicant's request for access to files seems to be based on a general interest in investigation and while such an interest cannot be disregarded as a general rule, it may not be sufficient to grant access to the sought documents where the interests mentioned in Article 45 UPCA were deemed to be more relevant.
In the case at hand, the protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings was found to outweigh the interest in information asserted by the applicant, so that the parties can present their arguments and evidence and so that the court can conduct the proceedings impartially and independently, without influence and interference from external parties in the public sector.
Thus, the court rejected the request to access to written pleadings and evidence.
2. Division
CD Paris
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_189/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Central revocation action
5. Parties
APPLICANTS:
Krahbichler Erik – Drottninggatan 11 – 25284
– Helsingborg – SE
SWAT Medical AB – Drottninggatan 11 – 25284 –
Helsingborg – SE
represented by Erik Krahbichler
RESPONDENTS:
Meril Italy srl – Piazza Tre Torri 2 20145 Milano
Italy
Meril Gmbh – Bornheimer Straße 135-137, 53119, Bonn,
Germany
Meril Life Sciences Pvt Ltd. – M10M2, Meril Park, Survey No
135/2/B & 174/2, Muktanand
Marg, Chala, Vapi 396 191, Gujarat, India
Edwards Lifesciences Corporation – 1 Edwards Way, 92614, Irvine, California, USA
6. Patent(s)
EP 4 151 181
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 45 UPCA
UPC_CFI_1892024 CD Paris 2024-09-23 Download
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.
