Summary of the 7 UPC Cases

Munich Central Division

20 & 21 September 2023

06 : 10 – 12 : 23

Whether third parties have the right to access written pleadings and evidence in UPC proceedings upon request

A patent attorney submitted a reasoned request to access written pleadings and evidence, initially claiming interest on behalf of a client, later changing to personal interest in patent validity

Rule 262.1 of the Rules of Procedure (RoP) – decisions and orders are published; written pleadings and evidence are available only upon reasoned request

A reasoned request requires a concrete, verifiable, and legitimate reason. Broad justifications such as general interest in patent validity are insufficient. Third parties cannot rely solely on studying patent prosecution and prior art

Establishes a high bar for third-party access; recognizes commercial interests of parties in protecting costly prepared pleadings

Nordic-Baltic Regional Division

17 October 2023

12 : 25 01 to 19 : 0

Whether a third party can access the statement of claim in settled UPC proceedings

• Case settled before statement of claim submission
• Unknown applicant requested access to the statement of claim, citing interest in how claims were framed and broader public interest in UPC system development

• Articles 10, 45, and 52 of UPCA;
• Rule 262.1 RoP – proceedings are public unless restricted by justified court decision

A reasoned request only requires a credible explanation for why the applicant wants access (lower bar than Munich). The applicant met this threshold; statement of claim should be transmitted

Conflicts with Munich Central Division approach; establishes lower bar for access; recognizes principle of public proceeding

UPC Court of Appeal (Luxembourg)

11 December 2023

19 : 10 – 22 : 40

Whether law firms can intervene in access requests based on similarity of their own cases

Two law firms sought to intervene in the OKADO case, claiming they had similar pending access request

Rule 3.13.1 RoP – intervention requires legal interest in the result of the action

Intervention requires direct interest, not merely indirect interest. Similarity in cases is insufficient for intervention right

Narrows intervention possibilities; establishes distinction between direct and indirect interests

Milan Local Division

13 & 14 June 2023

22 : 50 to 29 : 10

Ex parte order for preserving evidence (seizure) at public fair

• Patent holder obtained order on 12 June for seizure at public fair (8-14 June)
• Discovered second infringer and obtained second order on 13 June

Rule 192 RoP: application for preserving evidence (similar to French/Italian seizure procedures)

• Ex parte measures justified by urgency and risk of evidence destruction (particularly digital documents).
• Low bar for justifying ex parte nature.
• No guarantee required due to time constraints and applicant’s financial capacity

• Establishes very low threshold for ex parte seizure orders
• Digital data destruction risk is sufficient justification

Milan Local Division

25 September 2023

29 : 10 to 31 : 18

Seizure order covering multiple premises and guarantee requirements

• Order dated late September covering public fair (25 September).
• Seizure authorized for two different premises in single order. €50,000 guarantee imposed

Rule 192 RoP – preserving evidence procedures

• Court authorized seizure at two premises in single order (unusual compared to French practice).
• Guarantee required (€50,000).
• Low bar maintained for demonstrating urgency and ex parte justification

Shows flexibility in UPC seizure procedures compared to national systems; demonstrates use of guarantees in seizure orders

Brussels Local Division

21 September 2023

31 : 30  to 35 : 25

Seizure measure for event with short notice (symposium)

• Applicant knew of defendant’s participation months in advance but applied shortly before event (22 September symposium).
• Applicant attended by lawyer and technical advisor « only to the extent necessary »

Rule 192 RoP – preserving evidence

• Urgency demonstrated despite advance knowledge.
• Risk of irreparable harm (defendant not bringing product if warned).
• Court restricted applicant’s ability to send lawyer/technical advisor.
• No guarantee imposed. Report submission delayed one week from execution

• Shows court discretion in limiting party representation
• Differs slightly from French/Italian practices

Paris Local Division

14 November 2023

35 : 27 to 37 : 75

Seizure order with independent expert appointment and guarantee

• Application filed less than three months before execution (normal procedure, not urgent).
• Defendant operates outside UPC jurisdiction
• Product easily transportable.
• Expert appointed from independent list

Rule 192 RoP – preserving evidence procedures

• Urgency justified by defendant’s location outside jurisdiction and product transportability. Ex parte measure justified by digital data risk.
• Independent expert required (not applicant’s technical advisor as lead). €20,000 guarantee imposed.
• Applicant could appoint own technical advisor as supplement

• Establishes independent expert requirement (differs from French national seizure practice)
• Confirms low bar for ex parte justification
• Demonstrates guarantee use