The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (“UPC”) recently issued an Order in favour of Stadapharm GmbH (“Stadapharm”), granting its application for access to written pleadings and evidence in separate proceedings under R. 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure (“RoP”).
The Order follows the Hamburg Local Division’s Order in the recent case of Ballinno B.V. v UEFA & Kinexon (UPC_CFI_151/2024) and reaffirms that the principles established by the UPC Court of Appeal in Ocado v Autostore (ORD_19369/2024) are to be applied when considering applications to gain access to pleadings and/or evidence in public proceedings.
The public’s right to access documents in public proceedings must be carefully balanced with the need to preserve the integrity of proceedings and safeguard parties’ confidential information. This latest Order provides further guidance to applicants who wish to successfully gain access to documents under Rule 262.1 (b) RoP.
Background
Stadapharm applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP to gain access to several key documents, including the Statement of Claim and annexes, which formed part of proceedings where Accord was the claimant and Novartis the defendant. The case revolved around a declaration of non-infringement at the UPC Central Division Milan (the “Main Proceedings”).
Novartis opposed Stadapharm’s request, contending that the general interest in accessing the documents did not apply because the Main Proceedings were ongoing. Moreover, Novartis emphasised concerns about confidentiality, particularly in relation to the protection of personal data.
Accord, on the other hand, did not object to Stadapharm’s request for access.
On 3 February 2025, the Milan Local Division dismissed Stadapharm’s application, finding that Stadapharm failed to establish sufficient interest in the documents while the proceedings were ongoing.
Stadapharm lodged an appeal against this decision. Meanwhile, Accord applied to withdraw the Main Proceedings and on 1 April 2025, the Milan Central Division issued a final Order granting the withdrawal of the case, which was an important development for Stadapharm in its application.
The Point at Issue: Public Access to Documents
The case further clarifies the UPC position with respect to public access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
In Ocado v Autostore, the Court confirmed the principle that the UPC Register is publicly accessible, as per Article 10 of the UPC Agreement (“UPCA”) and Court proceedings are public (Article 45 UPCA). The Court confirmed that while the integrity of UPC proceedings must be safeguarded, the interests of public access must be balanced against the need to protect confidential information. Therefore, where access is granted, the Court is entitled to impose confidentiality or other usage restrictions on the disclosed information.
Ocado v Autostore also established that, the issue of maintaining the integrity of proceedings becomes less critical following the conclusion of first instance proceedings. As a result, access to documents would generally be permitted in such circumstances. Further, the mere existence of pending appeal proceedings does not justify denying access to pleadings and evidence filed during the first instance proceedings.
In Stadapharm’s case, the initial dismissal of its application by the Milan Local Division rested on Stadapharm’s perceived lack of demonstrated interest in accessing the documents. This decision highlighted the Court’s cautious approach, aiming to avoid any premature disclosure of sensitive information during ongoing proceedings. However, the withdrawal of the Main Proceedings marked a turning point.
Reasoning and Outcome
Following Accord’s withdrawal of the Main Proceedings, Stadapharm reiterated its request for access to the documents. It sought to have the impugned Order of the Milan Local Division reversed and the file inspection granted.
Accord did not comment on Stadapharm’s request for access, while Novartis revised its stance. In light of the closure of the Main proceedings, Novartis informed the Court that it no longer objected to Stadapharm’s request for access. Novartis clarified that its concerns over confidentiality were alleviated, save for the requirement for the redaction of personal data, including names, email addresses, and signatures of employees and counsels.
The Court of Appeal, therefore, faced no substantial opposition to granting public access so ruled that Stadapharm could access the requested documents, subject to redactions protecting personal data.
Implications
In Ocado v Autostore, the Court held that the need to preserve the integrity of proceedings is diminished following the conclusion of first instance proceedings.
However, in the present case, the Main Proceedings were not concluded through a final judgment, but were concluded by one party withdrawing instead. This withdrawal effectively mirrors the conclusion of first instance proceedings and the UPC will treat these circumstances as equivalent when considering an application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP.
The Order can be read here.
