1. Key takeaways
Requirements for a "reasoned request" for access under Rule 262.1(b) RoP
The UPC clarified that a "reasoned request" under Rule 262.1(b) RoP requires more than a general interest. The applicant must provide a specific and credible explanation for needing access to court documents, demonstrating a genuine need beyond publicly available information
In this case, the applicant's status as a competitor and their interest in the patent's validity were insufficient to grant access, as the relevant information was already publicly available.
Balancing transparency with fair trial rights
The decision underscores the UPC's commitment to balancing the principle of open justice (Article 45 UPCA) with the right to a fair trial. The court emphasized that transparency should not compromise the parties' ability to present their cases freely and fairly.
2. Division
Nordic-Baltic Regional Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_8/2023
ACT_459769/2023, ORD_36465/2024
App_33487/2024, App_33489/2024, App_33485/2024, App_33473/2024, App_33475/2024, App_33476/2024, App_33478/2024, App_33480/2024, App_33481/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Request for access to written pleadings and evidence (Rule 262.1(b) RoP) within a patent infringement action.
5. Parties
Applicant: Erik Krahbichler
Claimant: Edwards Lifesciences Corporation
Defendants: Meril Lifesciences PVT Limited, Meril GmbH, Smis International OÜ, Sormedica UAB
6. Patent(s)
EP 2 628 464
EP 3 646 825
EP 3 669 828
EP 3 769 722
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262.1(b) RoP
Article 45 UPCA
9550BC227FD55024CE581A48862BDF2D
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.
