Short Summary
This procedural order concerns an application by Acer Computer GmbH for public access to written pleadings and evidence filed in related patent amendment proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024) concerning EP 2 661 892 B1, owned by Nokia Technologies Oy. Acer argued that access was necessary to assess the validity of the patent, particularly because HP had filed an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent. The Defendant (Nokia) did not oppose the request but argued that Acer must ensure third parties do not receive access to the documents. The presiding judge granted the application for file inspection.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Central Division (Paris Seat), presided over by Judge Marjolein Visser, on 30 June 2025. The Applicant, Acer Computer GmbH, sought public access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The Respondents in the main proceedings were HP Printing and Computing Solutions, S.L.U. (the Claimant in the main infringement/revocation proceedings) and Nokia Technologies Oy (the Defendant and proprietor of the patent at issue, EP 2 661 892 B1). The patent amendment proceedings in question (UPC_CFI_181/2024) had been declared terminated on 27 March 2025.
On 25 April 2025, Acer filed an application seeking access to the written pleadings and evidence submitted in the patent amendment proceedings, including the Application to amend (filed 08/07/2024), the Defence to the Application to amend (filed 09/09/2024), and the Reply to the Defence (filed 09/10/2024). Acer argued that access was necessary because these documents would reveal the attack on the validity of EP 2 661 892 B1 and the defence of the patent proprietor, enabling Acer to assess the patent's validity. Acer further asserted a specific interest in the subject matter, noting that HP had filed an infringement action against Acer based on the same patent before the Local Division Munich (ACT_15096/2025). Acer also requested redaction of any personal data or confidential information.
The Claimant (HP) did not submit any comments on the request. The Defendant (Nokia) did not oppose the application but argued that Acer must ensure that third parties do not receive access to the written pleadings and evidence made available through file inspection. Nokia referenced the requirement under Rule 262.1(b) RoP that file inspection requires a general or specific (personal) interest, demonstrated by a reasoned request and weighed against the interests of the parties, citing a Local Division Düsseldorf order dated 9 April 2025 (UPC_CFI_135/2024). Nokia contended that even after proceedings are concluded, parties retain a legitimate interest in controlling access to the file contents.
& Analysis
The Court considered the application under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, which governs public access to written pleadings and evidence. The presiding judge weighed Acer's demonstrated specific interest—stemming from a pending infringement action against it based on the same patent—against the interests of the parties to the terminated proceedings. The Court noted that the proceedings had been declared terminated, reducing the countervailing interests of the original parties. The Court also addressed Nokia's concern regarding third-party access, recognizing that once access is granted under the public access provisions, confidentiality cannot be maintained.
Final Order & Ruling
The presiding judge granted Acer Computer GmbH's application for public access to the written pleadings and evidence in the terminated patent amendment proceedings (UPC_CFI_181/2024), subject to appropriate redaction of personal data and confidential information. The order reflects the principle that public access to the register, once granted, entails no further confidentiality protection, as indicated in the headnote.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Paris (FR) Central Division - Seat. Understanding the court's reasoning in Acer Computer GmbH vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and dismissed its applications for reinstatement. The Court held that an application for leave to appeal under Rule 157 in conjunction with Rule 221 of the Rules of Procedure is inadmissible insofar as it is directed against the rejection of a reinstatement application, since Rule 320.7 expressly precludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. The Court also rejected Europe Forestry's request to impose costs on Rematec, noting that cost reimbursement is generally not available in cost determination proceedings.
Rematec GmbH & Co KGvsEurope Forestry B.V.
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court refused leave to appeal against an order of the Local Division Mannheim that had rejected Rematec's two cost determination applications as time-barred and denied reinstatement into the missed deadlines. The Court of Appeal held that an application for leave to appeal under R. 157 and R. 221 RoP is inadmissible insofar as it challenges the rejection of a reinstatement application, because R. 320.7 RoP expressly excludes appeals against orders on reinstatement. No arguable grounds for leave to appeal were identified regarding the rejection of retroactive deadline extension requests.
Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research InstitutevsBioNTech SE, BioNTech Manufacturing GmbH, BioNTech Manufacturing Marburg GmbH, BioNTech Innovative Manufacturing Services GmbH, BioNTech Europe GmbH, Pfizer Manufacturing Belgium NV, Pfizer SAS, Pfizer AB, and Pfizer, Inc.
This order of the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerns three appeals (UPC-CoA-146/2026, UPC-CoA-147/2026, and UPC-CoA-148/2026) relating to EP 2 401 365. The appellants, Promosome LLC and The Scripps Research Institute, sought a one-month extension of the deadline for lodging their Statements of grounds of appeal, citing heavy professional workload and school holiday periods. Both groups of respondents (BioNTech and Pfizer entities) opposed the extension. The Court of Appeal rejected the applications, holding that the circumstances relied upon were foreseeable and did not justify an extension of the procedural time period.
Kodak Holding GmbH, Kodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbHvsFujifilm Corporation
This is a procedural order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning European Patent EP 3 511 174. The Respondents (Kodak entities) requested a one-week extension of the deadline to file written comments on the Applicant's (Fujifilm's) request for rehearing. The Court granted the extension until 23 October 2026, finding the request admissible and well-founded because the Applicant had consented, the extension was brief, and the Respondents' representatives had been occupied preparing for a related oral hearing before the Düsseldorf Regional Court that was postponed shortly before the application was filed.
Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd.vsSercomm Italia SRL
This is a procedural order from the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court concerning alternative service of process on Sercomm Italia SRL in a patent infringement action involving European Patent EP 3 611 989 B1. After multiple failed attempts to serve the Italian defendant at its registered business address, the rapporteur had previously ordered under Rule 275.2 RoP that the prior service measures constituted valid service. The present order addresses the fact that notification of that earlier order was unsuccessful and directs additional means of notification to ensure the defendant is informed.
Network System Technologies LLCvsQualcomm Incorporated, Qualcomm Technologies, Inc., Qualcomm Germany GmbH
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected Network System Technologies LLC's (NST) applications for re-establishment of rights under R. 320 RoP. NST had sought to revive its late-filed appeals against the rejection of its R. 190 Applications (production of evidence) in three infringement proceedings against Qualcomm before the Munich Local Division. The Court held that NST failed to demonstrate that all due care had been taken, as the circumstances cited did not constitute exceptional circumstances or excusable error under the precedent set in AIM v Supponor.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.