In November last year, Mathys & Squire had filed a document request under Rule 262.1(b) of the UPC Rules of Procedure in the proceedings between Astellas and Healios, Riken and Osaka University (Case ID: UPC CFI 75/2023 and ACT 464985/2023). The firm requested the Central Division in Munich, where the case was pending, to provide all pleadings and evidence filed in connection with the case.

Mathys & Squire is not the first party to request access to the files in these proceedings. Previously, the Munich Central Chamber under Judge András Kupecz had denied another third party access to documents from the written proceedings at the end of September 2023 (case number: UPC_CFI_75/2023).

Now Judge András Kupecz has granted Mathys & Squire access to the documents relating to the Astellas dispute (ID: App_588681/2023). In its decision, the Munich local chamber took into account that the original proceedings have now been concluded.

The decision states: “In balancing the interests of the applicant against those referred to in Article 45 UPCA, the integrity of the proceedings is no longer at stake once the proceedings have been concluded, as in the present case by a settlement, and the balance of interests will normally be in favour of granting access to pleadings and evidence in accordance with Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure.”

Confidentiality conditions

However, third parties can only access the pleadings and evidence filed and stored in the register of case ACT_464985/2023 if the personal data have been redacted. In addition, the decision states that certain information must be kept confidential.

This leaves the question of access to information during an ongoing procedure unresolved. In addition, following this decision, third parties are no longer permitted access to any documents.

It is unclear whether either party will appeal the decision.

The lead role was taken by Nicholas Fox, partner at Mathys & Squire, together with patent attorneys Alexander Robinson and Andreas Wietzke.

In addition, the team obtained a judgment similar to the present case in a dispute between Bitzer and Carrier. The rapporteur Paolo Catallozzi of the Paris Central Chamber granted Mathys & Squire access because the proceedings had ended.

The Mathys & Squire team was also involved in an appeal in a similar dispute between Ocado and Autostore.

Numerous interventions for transparency

Other parties in the proceedings also requested access to documents, including Christopher Stothers, a partner at Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer in London, who requested access to the statement of claim in Ocado v. Autostore under Rule 262 1(b) of the UPC Rules.

First, the Nordic-Baltic Division ruled that the UPC must grant a person’s request for access to pleadings or evidence under Rule 262.1(b) unless the court’s retention of the information is necessary.

In spring 2024, the Court of Appeal ruled that members of the public can obtain pleadings if they have a legitimate interest or for educational reasons. It also clarified that the UPC will grant access even if the parties have settled or withdrawn their claims, as the public interest can legitimately arise at any time during or after the course of a case. However, according to the judges, a member of the public or third party needs a qualified UPC representative to gain access to court documents.

According to JUVE patent research, the UPC has not yet granted access to files in pending proceedings.