15 April 2024
Authored and Edited by Dr. Antje Brambrink
In the appeal proceedings against the decision of the Nordic-Baltic Regional Division regarding access to written pleadings and evidence of the Ocado vs. AutoStore case[1] by a member of the public, the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) Court of Appeal held on April 10, 2024 (UPC_CoA_404/2023) that a fair balancing of interests is required to decide on such requests. The interests of the parties, of the applicant and the public need to be considered. Also, the stage of the proceedings is to be considered:
During pending proceedings access to the files may be granted immediately if the applicant has a specific interest in the subject-matter of the proceeding such as the validity of a patent (e.g., if the applicant is also concerned with it), or in case of alleged patent infringement. To protect the parties’ interests, access can be made subject to protective orders.
Once a case is decided, the integrity of the proceedings does not weigh in anymore. It usually only plays a role during proceedings, meaning that the parties must be able to bring their arguments and evidence to be decided upon without interference from parties in the public domain. On the other hand, a general interest of a member of the public usually arises after a decision was rendered. That means access to the UPC’s court files will be much easier to obtain once a case has come to an end.
If proceedings have been terminated without a decision access to the files may be granted in case of overweighing legitimate public interests, which may be for example of scientific or educational nature.
Interestingly, the Court of Appeal also found that it may decide a case with three legally qualified judges only, provided that the subject matter is of a non-technical nature only, and no technical issues are at stake. This practice deviates from the explicit wording of Art. 9 (1) UPC-Agreement (UPCA), which provides for a Court of Appeal panel to consist of five international judges including two technically qualified individuals.
However, the judges considered Art. 9 (1) UPCA not being conclusive. They inferred this not only from various Rules of Procedure that allow for other panel compositions, but also from the general principles outlined in Art. 41 (3) UPCA, such as efficiency and cost-effectiveness, as well as a comparison with the practices in the participating Member States.
All in all, this decision is positive. On one hand it paves the way for more transparency of the UPC’s court proceedings. This allows scrutiny of the new court, which is very important for the public and potential litigants to build trust in this new venue.
On the other hand, the decision that purely legal questions may be decided by legally qualified judges of a panel only, enables the court to be very efficient in light of the raising number of UPC proceedings.
[1] UPC_ CFI_11/2023, dec. of Oct. 17, 2023 – Ocado v. Autostore.
Copyright © 2024 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
June 10-12, 2024
San Francisco
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.