BARDEHLE PAGENBERG combines the expertise of attorneys-at-law and patent attorneys. As one of the largest IP firms in Europe, BARDEHLE PAGENBERG advises in all fields of Intellectual Property, including all procedures before the patent and trademark offices as well as litigation before the courts through all instances.
In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information.
In two parallel infringement proceedings that had been terminated before a decision on the merits was rendered, a law firm applied for access to the parties’ written submissions under R. 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational and advisory purposes. The judge-rapporteur of the Munich LD granted access subject to redactions of confidential information. Appellant challenged the decision, first by requesting panel review under R. 333 RoP, and subsequently by filing a discretionary appeal under R. 220.3 RoP after the Munich LD declared the panel review inadmissible and confirmed the rapporteur’s decision on the merits. The CoA found the appeal admissible but dismissed it as unfounded.
Key takeaways
Decisions of the judge-rapporteur under R. 262.1(b) RoP are subject to panel review under R. 333 RoP
The CoA disagrees with the Munich LD’s finding that a panel review under R. 333 RoP is not available against a decision of the judge-rapporteur on public access to file. The term “procedural decision or order” in R. 333.1 RoP is a broad concept requiring broad interpretation. Although the rapporteur’s decision may be of a more substantive nature in the dispute between the member of the public and the parties whose submissions are at stake, it ultimately concerns the management of the case file of the panel to which the rapporteur belongs and therefore qualifies as a procedural decision within the meaning of R. 333.1 RoP. The general principle that only the panel can decide on leave to appeal applies, and the system of panel review may only be bypassed in exceptional cases – none of which are present under R. 262.1(b) RoP.
The applicable appeal regime is R. 220.2 and 220.3 RoP, not R. 220.1 RoP
The rapporteur’s decision under R. 262.1(b) RoP does not fall under any category of R. 220.1 RoP. It is not a “final decision” under R. 220.1(a) (it is a procedural decision), nor a decision “terminating proceedings with regard to one of the parties” under R. 220.1(b) (access to file proceedings are multi-party and the decision terminates the proceedings for all parties simultaneously). R. 220.2 RoP is better suited given the shorter time limits, lower fees, and consistency with the appeal regime for confidentiality orders under R. 262.2 ff. RoP. The correct procedural route is therefore: panel review under R. 333 RoP, followed by an appeal under R. 220.2/220.3 RoP.
After conclusion of proceedings, the balance of interests generally favours granting access
Once the underlying proceedings have been concluded, whether by judgment, settlement, or withdrawal, the balance of interests generally tips in favour of granting access. The case file may still provide insight into how the court handled the dispute and/or serve legitimate interests such as scientific or educational purposes, which are no longer outweighed by the integrity of proceedings once those proceedings have ended. No proof is required as to which specific part of a document will yield educational benefit, as this generally cannot be determined in advance and would unduly restrict the public’s right of access.
A law firm’s general interest in professional education and advisory improvement constitutes a legitimate interest
A law firm qualifies as a member of the public under R. 262.1(b) RoP. Its general interest in understanding how parties and the UPC conduct proceedings, which improves its ability to advise clients professionally and competently, is a legitimate interest sufficient to justify access, even without a court decision in the underlying case.
No confidentiality undertaking by the party requesting access required after proceedings have been concluded
Where the underlying proceedings have already been terminated, a confidentiality undertaking by the party requesting access is not required to protect the integrity of those proceedings. The purpose of such an undertaking (safeguarding ongoing proceedings) no longer applies.
Division
Court of Appeal, Panel 3 (Ulrike Voß, Bart van den Broek, Nathalie Sabotier)
UPC number
UPC_CoA_52/2026 and UPC_CoA_53/2026
Type of proceedings
Discretionary review (R. 220.3 RoP) of an order on public access to file (R. 262.1(b) RoP)
Co-Respondents: MediaTek Inc.; MediaTek Deutschland GmbH
Patent(s)
EP 4 142 215 (UPC_CoA_52/2026); EP 3 905 840 (UPC_CoA_53/2026)
Body of legislation / Rules
Art. 10(1) UPCA; Art. 45 UPCA; Art. 52(3) UPCA; R. 18 RoP; R. 220.1 RoP; R. 220.2 RoP; R. 220.3 RoP; R. 231 RoP; R. 262.1(b) RoP; R. 262.2 RoP; R. 333 RoP; R. 335 RoP; Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
