Andreas von Falck and Christian Stoll, ‘EPGVerfO Regel 262’ in Winfried Tilmann and Clemens Plassmann (eds) Einheitspatent, Einheitliches Patentgericht (CH Beck Munich, Germany 2024) para 4.
Mathieu Klos, ‘UPC Member States Must Commit to Maximum Transparency of Judgments’ (Juve Patent, 27 April 2022). Available at https://www.juve-patent.com/ legal-commentary/upc-member-states-must-commit-to-maximum-transparency-ofjudgments (accessed 1 June 2024).
Tilmann Büttner, ‘EPGÜ Artikel 10’ in Winfried Tilmann and Clemens Plassmann (eds) Einheitspatent, Einheitliches Patentgericht (CH Beck Munich, Germany 2024) para 16.
Jane Johnston, ‘Three Phases of Courts’ Publicity: Reconfiguring Bentham’s Open Justice in the Twenty-first Century’ (2018) 14 International Journal of Law in Context 525 at 528 citing Judith Resnik, ‘The Democracy in Courts: Jeremy Bentham, Publicity, and the Privatization of Process in the Twenty-First Century’ (2013) 10 No Foundations: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Law & Justice 77.
‘transparent a (n.)’, trans-+pārēre to appear, be visible, Oxford English Dictionary (OED Second Edition 1989). Available at https://www.oed.com/oedv2/00256456 (accessed 1 June 2024).
Eszter Bodnár, ‘Transparency and Openness of Courts in the 21st Century. An Issue Worth Researching on’ (2016) 18 Iuris Dictio 149 at 152.
Eszter Bodnár, 'Transparency and Openness of Courts in the 21st Century. An Issue Worth Researching on' 153.
David Heald, ‘Transparency as an Instrumental Value’ (2006) 135 Proceedings of the British Academy 59; Anoeska Buijze, ‘The Six Faces of Transparency’ (2013) 9 Utrecht Law Review 3 at 4f.
Francesco Manganaro, ‘L’Evoluzione del Principio di Trasparenza Amministrativa’ (2009) 22 Astrid Rassegna 1 at 5.
Buijze (n 8) 3.
Manganaro (n 9).
Ocado v Stothers, UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023, 10 April 2024.
Amy Sandys, ‘The UPC Stance on Transparency Erodes the Principle of Open Justice’ (Juve Patent, 19 February 2024). Available at https://www.juve-patent.com/legalcommentary/the-upc-stance-on-transparency-erodes-the-principle-of-open-justice/ (accessed 1 June 2024).
For example, in 2022, the year before the entry into force of the UPC, a maximum number of lawsuits were filed in Germany amounting to a total of 841, followed by France (the court in Paris) with 174 lawsuits, the Netherlands (the court in the Hague) with 116 lawsuits and, finally, Italy (the court in Milan) with 94 lawsuits. See, Konstanze Richter, ‘Case Numbers Soar at French Patent Courts, Although Germany Remains Ahead’ (Juve Patent, 6 July 2022). Available at https://www.juve-patent.com/people-and-business/cas e-numbers-soar-at-french-patent-courts-although-germany-remains-ahead/ (accessed 1 June 2024).
See also, Katrin Cremers and others, ‘Patent Litigation in Europe’ (2016) 44 European Journal of Law & Economics 1 at 23.
s 299 (2) ZPO. For access to files in nullity proceedings, see, however, Federal Court of Justice (Germany), (2023) GRUR 111—Akteneinsicht XXVI.
Klaus Bacher, ‘§ 299 ZPO’ in Volkert Vorwerk and Christian Wolf (eds) BeckOK ZPO (52th ed CH Beck Munich, Germany 2024) para 27.1 with further references. See also, in contrast to s 299 (2) ZPO, s 15 (2) FamFG for proceedings in family matters and in matters of non-contentious jurisdiction requiring merely a ‘legitimate interest’ which can be, eg an economic interest.
Art 29, Civil Procedural Code of France.
Hoge Raad (Dutch Supreme Court), 21 April 2023, ECLI:NL:HR:2023:658.
Moreover, a court must make an overview of pending cases publicly available and information about the time and place of hearings and the name of the presiding judge.
Art 76, Implementing Provisions of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure.
s 1, Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings in General Courts.
s 1, Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings in General Courts s 3(1)(1).
s 1, Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings in General Courts s 10.
s 1, Act on the Publicity of Court Proceedings in General Courts s 9(1)(1)(2).
Tryckfrihetsförordningen (1949:105).
Offentlighets- och sekretesslag (2009:400).
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH et al. v. Amgen Inc., Order no 550152, UPC_CFI_1/2023.
Astellas Institute for Regenerative Medicine v Healikos K.K, Riken and Osaka University, Order no 552745, UPC_CFI_75/2023.
Ocado Innovation Limited v. Autostore AS et al., Order no 543819/2023, UPC_CFI_11/2023.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12).
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH et al. v. Amgen Inc. (n 29) 4.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH et al. v. Amgen Inc 5.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH et al. v. Amgen Inc 6.
Astellas v. Healios K.K, Riken and Osaka University (n 30) 4.
Astellas v. Healios K.K, Riken and Osaka University 5.
Astellas v. Healios K.K, Riken and Osaka University 6.
Astellas v. Healios K.K, Riken and Osaka University 5f.
Astellas v. Healios K.K, Riken and Osaka University 6.
Ocado Innovation Limited v. Autostore AS et al. (n 31) 3.
Ocado Innovation Limited v. Autostore AS et al. 5.
Ocado Innovation Limited v. Autostore AS et al. 5.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 7.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 11.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 41.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 42.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 43.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 43.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 43.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 44.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 48.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 49ff.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 53.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 53.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 54.
In addition to the issue of access to court files, the respondent also argued that the composition of the panel of the Court of Appeal only by three legally qualified judges was not compatible with Art 6 of the ECHR and that technically qualified judges should have also been present in the decision-making process based on Art 9(1) UPCA. The CoA, when interpreting Art 9(1) of the UPCA to answer the question on whether the panel of the CoA is allowed to sit only in the panel of three legally qualified judges, relied on the RoP and the Statute of the UPC, the general principles of the UPC, the national systems (German, Finnish, Danish and Swedish) and the drafting history of the UPCA and concluded that Art 9(1) is non-exhaustive allowing for flexibility. Therefore, when a non-technical matter is at stake, the panel can consist of only three legally qualified judges. Hence, such composition of a panel of the CoA was not considered a violation of Art 6 ECHR.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH et al. v. Amgen Inc. (n 29) 5.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 42.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 51.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 53.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH et al. v. Amgen Inc. (n 29) 6. See also Winfried Tilmann, ‘Requesting Access to Content of UPC’s Register—Amgen/Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland’ (2023) 125 GRUR 1616 at 1617 (supporting the approach of the court).
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 44.
Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH et al. v. Amgen Inc. (n 29) 6.
See Alexander Robinson et al., ‘Interventions at the UPC: Lessons from the Ocado Case’ (2024) 115 Mitteilungen der deutschen Patentanwälte 168 at 171. The authors pose the question on the CoA’s approach to be taken after their commentary of the order of the CoA in which the CoA dismissed the applications to intervene submitted based on the Rule 313 RoP. While the CoA did not cite the CJEU statute, it adopted a similar reasoning to that of the CJEU, particularly requiring the ‘direct and present interest’ in order to grant the intervention. See Ocado Innovation Limited vs Autostore AS et al. vs Mathys G Squire LLP and Bristows (Ireland) LLP, UPC_CoA_404/2023 App_584498/2023, 24 January 2024, para 12.
A successful patent infringement suit may lead to the withdrawal of products from the market by the infringer, which can represent a considerable loss of profits. In this regard, see Mark Lemley and Carl Shapiro, ‘Probabilistic Patents’ (2005) 19 Journal of Economic Perspectives 75 at 80.
See Bernard Chao and Derigan Silver, ‘A Case Study in Patent Litigation Transparency’ (2014) 1 Journal of Dispute Resolution 83 at 88f, where the authors argue that the access to court filings in patent cases gives important information to the public concerning the patent scope that leads to relevant decisions by competitors on follow-on innovation and/or licence agreement. As a result, costs are reflected on the price and accessibility for consumers.
To make information regarding SEPs available, the European Commission has recently proposed a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on standard essential patents and amending Regulation (EU)2017/1001, COM(2023) 232 final.
See Lemley and Shapiro (n 73) at 81.
cf Daria Bohatchuck, ‘Transparency as a Legal Value of Patent Disclosure’ (2023) 14 JIPITEC 190 at 193. See also Massimo Durante, ‘Dealing with Legal Conflicts in the Information Society. An Informational Understanding of Balancing Competing Interests’ (2013) 26 Philosophy & Technology 437 at 455.
For example, Samsung was ordered to pay Apple $539 million in 2018 for infringement of patents in one of their many patent battles. See Jack Nicas, ‘Apple and Samsung End Smartphone Patent Wars’ The New York Times, 27 June 2018. Available at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/27/technology/apple-samsung-smartphonepatent.html (accessed 1 June 2024).
Yongwook Paik and Feng Zhu, ‘The Impact of Patent Wars on Firm Strategy: Evidence from the Global Smartphone Industry’ (2016) at 6. Available at SSRN https://ssrn.com/ abstract=2340899 (accessed 1 June 2024).
Yongwook Paik and Feng Zhu, 'The Impact of Patent Wars on Firm Strategy: Evidence from the Global Smartphone Industry at 7.
Access to information on case files is governed by specific articles of the European Patent Convention (EPC), the associated Implementing Regulations and the decisions of the President of the EPO concerning inspection of files. See decisions of the President of the EPO of 12 July 2007 (Special edition No 3 OJ EPO 2007, J.3), 20 February 2019 (OJ EPO 2019, A16) and 20 February 2019 (OJ EPO 2019, A17). Arts 128 EPC and 144-47 of the Implementing Regulations constitute the primary legal framework concerning access to information within EPO proceedings. Pursuant to Rule 144, the exceptions to public inspection are ‘(a) the documents relating to the exclusion of or objections to members of the Boards of Appeal or of the Enlarged Board of Appeal; (b) draft decisions and notices, and all other documents, used for the preparation of decisions and notices, which are not communicated to the parties; (c) the designation of the inventor, if he has waived his right to be mentioned under Rule 20, paragraph 1; (d) any other document excluded from inspection by the President of the European Patent Office on the ground that such inspection would not serve the purpose of informing the public about the European patent application or the European patent’.
Art 1(2)(a) of the Decision of the President of the EPO of 12 July 2007 (Special edition No 3 OJ EPO 2007, J.3).
See EPO Guidelines for Examination, Part A, Chapter XI, s 2.3.
Available at https://register.epo.org/regviewer (accessed 1 June 2024).
Art 128(4) EPC.
Chao and Silver (n 74) 90.
See eg Michael Collins QC, ‘Privacy and Confidentiality in Arbitration Proceedings’ (1995) 11 Arbitration International 321-36.
Art 83 UPCA provides a regime for a transitional period whereby patents can be opted out from the UPC jurisdiction.
See eg Kurt Haertel, ‘Die Harmonisierungswirkung des Europäischen Patentrechts’ (1981) 30 GRUR International 479 (describing the harmonizing effect of European patent law (including the EPC) on national patent law); David I Bainbridge, Intellectual Property (10th edn Pearson London, UK 2018) 819f (stating that the influence of the EPC is evident in the requirements for patentability in the UK).
Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation).
See Paul England, A Practitioner’s Guide to the Unified Patent Court and Unitary Patent (Hart Publishing Oxford, UK 2022) 248f.
cf Winfried Tilmann, ‘Article 45’ in Winfried Tilmann and Clemens Plassmann (eds) Unified Patent Protection in Europe. A Commentary (Oxford, UK 2018) para 22f;
Andreas von Falck and Christian Stoll, ‘RoP R.262’ in Winfried Tilmann and Clemens Plassmann (eds) Unified Patent Protection in Europe (Oxford University Press 2018) para 5;
England (n 91);
Axel Metzger, ‘Ein Jahr Rechtsprechung des EPG. Welche einheitliche Praxis entsteht?’ (2024) 126 GRUR 715 at 721f.
See eg Tilmann (n 92) para 23 (referring only to Rule 115 RoP which relates to oral hearings).
This decision of the Administrative Committee is in line with Art 41(1) UPCA. Rule 262 does not contradict Art 45 UPCA. Rather, the latter only sets the general framework for proceedings and does not regulate, for the specific situation of public access to written pleadings and evidence that the general interest of justice and public order needs to be considered.
See, Presidium of the Unified Patent Court, Rules governing the Registry of the Unified Patent Court (Amended), 31 July 2023, 1.
For a comparative analysis of the doctrine of abuse of law in European private law, see, Philipp Eichenhofer, Rechtsmissbrauch (Mohr Siebeck Tübingen, Germany 2019). For the concept of abuse of rights as a general principle of EU law, see Amandine Léonard, Abuse of Rights in European Patent Law (May 2019) 43ff. Available at https://lirias.kuleuven. be/retrieve/536828 (accessed 1 June 2024).
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) para 48.
See Lynn M LoPucki, ‘Court-System Transparency’ (2008) 94 Iowa Law Review 481 at 532 (citing Jeremy Bentham).
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) 8 February 2024, para 2.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) 8 February para 2.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) 8 February para 9.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) 8 February para 4.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) 8 February para 8f.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) 8 February para 14.
Ocado v Stothers (n 12) 8 February para 2.
See Federica Baldan and Esther van Zimmeren, ‘The Future Role of the Unified Patent Court in Safeguarding Coherence in the European Patent System’ (2015) 52 Common Market Law Review 1529 at 1575.
