1. Key takeaways
Patent pool administrators have a direct legal interest in litigations concerning patents within their pools
The court, referencing Rule 313 of the Rules of Procedure of the Unified Patent Court (RoP), affirmed that a patent pool administrator possesses a direct and present legal interest in the outcome of such a lawsuit.
This interest stems from the administrator's authority to negotiate licenses for the pooled patent, collect royalties, and potentially face claims from pool members based on the litigation's result. The court recognized that a judgment impacting the validity or infringement of the pooled patent directly affects the administrator's legal standing and ability to perform its duties.
The court recognized that a judgment in the lawsuit could impact the administrator's legal standing and potentially expose it to claims from pool members.
The mere possibility of information exchange between a patent pool administrator and a party in a lawsuit does not automatically constitute an infringement of EU competition law
Court's Order
Intervention Granted: Access Advance's application to intervene was granted, recognizing its legal interest in the case.
Restricted Access to Confidential Information: To address confidentiality and potential antitrust concerns, the court imposed restrictions on Access Advance's access to confidential information. Specifically, Access Advance was denied access to information pertaining to bilateral licensing discussions between NEC and TCL. Access was granted to other confidential information, but only for specific individuals and under strict confidentiality obligations.
Headnotes
- In principle, a patent pool administrator has a legal interest in the outcome of proceedings within the meaning of Rule 313 RoP.
- Admission of the intervention is not precluded by the fact that it does not prevent an violation of Article 101 TFEU, since the applicant and a party have the possibility to exchange sensitive information under competition law in their written submissions. Allowing an intervention as such does not constitute a violation of Art. 101 TFEU.
- By admitting the intervention, the applicant becomes a party to the proceedings and is to be treated as a party in accordance with Rule 315(4) RoP. Since it must accept the proceedings at this stage, it must be allowed access to the file in order to be able to conduct the proceedings properly.
- If the court has already classified certain information as confidential and granted only limited access to the party on whose side the intervener is joining pursuant to Rule 262a RoP, the intervener cannot be granted unlimited access to this information.
2. Division
Local Division Munich
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_153/2024
4. Type of proceedings
Infringement proceedings and counterclaim for revocation
5. Parties
Claimant: NEC Corporation
Defendants: TCL and related entities
Intervenor (Applicant): Access Advance LLC
6. Patent
EP 2 863 637 (a standard-essential patent for the HEVC technology)
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262A RoP (restrictions on access to confidential information), Rule 313 RoP (legal interest for intervention), Rule 315(4) RoP (party status of intervener), Article 101 TFEU (prohibition of anti-competitive agreements and practices)
UPC_CFI_153_2024_October_2_2024 - Download Decision
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.
