Applying Ocado, the UPC grants a R262 request to access CFI documents

NJOY Netherlands B.V v Juul Labs International, Inc (UPC_CFI_309/2023)

Order issued 9 June 2025 (ORD_27305/2025) [1]

The Paris Central Division revoked Juul Lab's patent EP 3 498 115 B1 by decision dated 5th November 2024 (UPC CFI 309 /2023). [2] Juul Labs subsequently appealed the decision, and while the appeal remains pending, a firm of lawyers and patent attorneys ("the Applicant") lodged a request under Rule 262.1(b) on 21 February 2025 to access pleadings and evidence in the first instance proceedings. Juul Labs requested that the Court rejects the request, and alternatively, if the Court does grant the request, it should grant access only with a restriction ‘from filing the written pleadings or parts of them with other courts or judicial instances.'

The Law

Rule 262.1(b) states that written pleadings and evidence lodged at the Court and recorded by the Registry shall be available to the public upon ‘reasoned request' to the Registry; the decision is taken by the judge-rapporteur after consulting the parties. A ‘reasoned request' is one where an applicant explains why their access to the specified documents is necessary and legitimate. A party to the litigation may request that certain information in written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential and provide specific reasons for such confidentiality.

The Court of Appeal in Ocado v Autostore (UPC_CoA_404/2023)[3] expanded on Rule 262, finding that when there is a request made by a member of public to access court documents, the interests of a member of the public must be weighed against the interests mentioned in Articles 10 and 45 UPCA. Articles 10 and 45 govern the general principle that first instance and appeal proceedings shall be open to the public unless the Court decides to make them confidential, to the extent necessary, in the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons, or in the general interest of justice or public order.

The Applicant's interest

The Applicants' interest is one of access to precedent. As a German IP firm, they submit that they represent various clients in revocation proceedings before the UPC which have ‘comparable subject matter' to the first instance decision. For this reason, they argue their request is justified because they intend to obtain a ‘comprehensive picture of the line of arguments that led to the Court's decision' (para 3.7).

The Defendant's interest

Juul Labs argued that, despite their claim to represent other UPC parties in revocation cases with ‘comparable subject matter,' the Applicant has no legitimate interest in the subject matter of the present case. Juul Labs alleged that the Applicant would likely ‘copy-paste' extracts from the written pleadings and evidence to reproduce into EPO oppositions or other court proceedings, leading to third party access of such material without lodging a reasoned request with the UPC, thereby contravening the interests of the parties and the UPCA principles to keep relevant materials confidential.

Decision

Per Ocado v Autostore, the Court must undergo a weighing of the balance of interests. The Court found that the Applicant had submitted a reasonable request; their intention to obtain a greater understanding of the arguments that led to the Court's decision was justifiable. The Court did not find Juul Labs' arguments to be capable of shifting the balance of interest towards withholding the case documents, and the Court found their denouncement of the Applicant's legitimate interest insufficient. Juul Labs' concerns about the potential misuse of documents in other jurisdictions were also dismissed. The Court clarified that the general position as found in Articles 10 and 45 is that ‘the register is public and proceedings are open to the public, unless the balance of interest involved is such that they are to be kept confidential' (para 4.4). Quoting Ocado v Autostore (para 50), the Court clarified that withholding access to documents once a judgment has been published no longer serves the purpose of protecting the integrity of proceedings, as the publicly available decision will contain the relevant arguments and evidence presented by the parties and thus already subject to public debate.

The Court granted the Applicant access to written pleadings and evidence, with appropriate redaction of personal data. However, the Court also granted Juul Labs leave to appeal and suspended the effects of the order until the deadline for filing an appeal, or if an appeal is filed, until the end of the appeal proceedings.

Written by Dalton Tucker and Fathia Adeniran.

[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/125754

[2] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/1239

[3] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/657