- within Intellectual Property topic(s)
- in United States
- within Technology topic(s)
1. Key takeaways
Admissibility of public access requests under Rule 262.1(b) RoP requires a specific application
A member of the public must submit a reasoned request explaining the purpose of the requested access and specify the documents and evidence sought as precisely as possible (Sec. 15). In this regard it is sufficient that applicant wants to better undestand why claimant considers its patent to be essential for a standard (Sec. 17). However, general requests for “access to the Register” or unspecified exhibits are inadmissible, as the Court cannot be expected to sight the evidence and select relevant documents on behalf of the applicant. Instead, the applicant must specify as precisely as possible which pleadings and evidence the request for access relates to (Sec. 19).
Once first-instance proceedings have concluded, public interest generally outweighs confidentiality concerns
Upon conclusion of first-instance proceedings, public interest generally outweighs confidentiality concerns under Art. 45 UPCA (Sec. 23 with further references).
This applies irrespective of whether an appeal is pending, whether the order concerns provisional measures (Rule 206 RoP), or whether the same information or evidence also relates to parallel proceedings on the same patent or patent family (Sec. 24 with reference to UPC CoA Abbott v. Powell Gilbert).
Specific interests may justify access during ongoing proceedings
A member of the public may have specific interests in the briefs and evidence of specific proceedings, especially as a competitor or licensee who is directly concerned by the validity of the patent or who is alleged to infringe the same patent with an identical or similar product (Sec. 25 with further references).
Standard-essentiality analyses do not constitute protectable confidential information under Rule 262.2 RoP
One party’s significant time and financial expenditure to analyze the standard-essentiality of a patent represents ordinary litigation preparation and does not suffice to qualify the resulting legal or technical arguments as confidential under Rule 262.2 RoP (Sec. 30).
2. Division
Düsseldorf Local Division
3. UPC number
UPC_CFI_226/2024, App_11638/2025
4. Type of proceedings
Application for public access the register (Rule 262.1(b) RoP)
5. Parties
Applicant: Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V.
Claimant: Dolby International AB
Defendants: Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd., Optoma Corporation
6. Patent(s)
EP 3 605 534
UPC
7. Body of legislation / Rules
Rule 262.1(b), 262.2 RoP
Art. 45 UPCA.
To view the full article please click here.
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.
[View Source]