Access to documents – representation

​
Darren Smyth
​
February 20, 2024
#
UPC
#
Recent cases
#
Access to documents
#
Representation
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Ocado v Autostore – appeal on access to documents UPC_CoA_404/2023

Order of 8 February 2024[1]

In the Appeal by Ocado against the Order[2] from the Nordic Baltic regional division granting a request under Rule 262.1(b) for inspection of the statement of claim, the question arose whether the person requesting access to that document required representation by a UPC representative for the proceedings.

Both Ocado and the requester submitted to the Court of Appeal that such a person should not require representation. Both were of the opinion that the requester is not a "party" requiring representation, and moreover the requester argued that requiring representation simply to seek access to a document filed at the court would place an unnecessary burden on that individual and would undermine the ability of the public to ensure that proceedings are open. Autostore did not comment.

Despite these submissions, the Court of Appeal ruled that the concept of "party" requiring representation according to Rule 8.1 RoP was broader than the parties to the action, and that unless specified otherwise (as for example in Rule 5 RoP in relation to opt-outs), any person undertaking any application or action with respect to the UPC required representation. This conclusion was justified on the basis that:

  • The access to the written pleadings and evidence requires a reasoned request. It is appropriate that representation is required for this purpose.
  • The procedure for considering such a request is in principle adversarial, for which representation is called for.

The Court of Appeal therefore held that the requester should have been represented before the Court of First Instance and must also be represented before the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, it disregarded the Statement of response lodged by the requester as it was not lodged by an authorised representative pursuant to Article 48 UPCA.

The requester was given 14 days to instruct a representative and (re)lodge a Statement of response.

The oral hearing to consider the substantive issue of the criteria for the UPC granting access to documents filed at the Court is scheduled for 12 March 2024. Irrespective of what is decided on this issue, the present Order creates a significant barrier to members of the public from even applying for such access, since they will need to instruct a UPC representative to make the request.


[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/568

[2] Reported https://eip.com//knowledge_hub/article/upc_grants_access_to_pleadings_for_the_first_time/

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

UPC Court of appeal issues final decision, despite no finding on infringement at first instance
30 March 2026
In Rematec v Europe Forestry, the UPC Court of Appeal overturned the Mannheim Local Division’s revocation of the patent and, applying Article 75(1) UPCA, issued a final decision on both validity and infringement despite no infringement finding at first instance. The Court adopted a narrower, description‑led approach to claim interpretation, confirmed the patent’s validity, found infringement, and granted final remedies without referring the case back to the Court of First Instance.
​
Litigation insurance as security for costs
30 March 2026
In Syntorr v Arthrex, the UPC Court of Appeal clarified that while litigation insurance is not itself a form of security under Rule 158 RoP, it is a relevant factor when deciding whether security for costs should be ordered at all. By failing to consider the claimant’s insurance policy, the Munich Local Division wrongly exercised its discretion. The Court set aside the €2 million security order and confirmed that insurance can mitigate concerns about cost recoverability.
​
National law applies to claims for loss of profit if the events occurred before the UPC came into force
30 March 2026
In Fives v REEL, the Hamburg Local Division of the UPC dismissed a standalone damages action despite prior findings of infringement. Although the UPC was competent to assess damages, the court held that national law applied because the relevant events pre‑dated the UPC’s entry into force. Applying German law, the court found that the claimant had not proven causation or lost profit, highlighting the demanding evidentiary burden for price‑reduction damages claims and the importance of substantiating counterfactual tender outcomes.
​