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
ZENTIVA K.S., ZENTIVA PORTUGAL, LDAvsRespondent
(ROP 313) 1) Parallelism between two cases or the allegation that the outcome of a judgment has a direct impact on another does not establish a legal interest to intervention pursuant to RoP 313. 2) The expression 'made in support, in whole or in part, of a claim, order or relief sought by one of the parties' in Rule 313.2 RoP must be interpreted as meaning that the intervening party's remedies must be non-contradictory to those of the party who has been supported, and therefore in accor
Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland LimitedvsKeeex SAS (Discretionary Review of UPC_CFI_530/2025)
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court rejected a discretionary review request (R. 220.3 RoP) filed by Adobe Inc. and Adobe Systems Software Ireland Limited against an order of the Paris Local Division dated June 1, 2026. The underlying dispute concerned Keeex SAS's patent infringement action regarding EP 2 949 070, in which Keeex introduced a claim for provisional damages of €120 million in its Reply brief. The Court of Appeal found that the Local Division's decision was not manifestly
Morello Forni Italia srl e Morello Forni Sas di Morello Marco & CvsGastroteam Abbe AB e Marciuliano Attrezzature di Salvatore Marciuliano
This is a cost decision by the Unified Patent Court, Local Division Milan, following a prior judgment (UPC CFI n. 802/2024) finding that Gastroteam Abbe AB and Salvatore Marciuliano infringed patent EP3691454. The claimants sought reimbursement of €62,719.20 in litigation costs. The court determined that the cost application was timely filed and properly notified to both defendants, and awarded a total of €62,359.32, reducing the representatives' fees from €45,359.88 to €45,000 based on the proportionality principle and the limited complexity of the case.
InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.vsAmazon.com, Inc.
The plaintiffs, four InterDigital entities, withdrew their lawsuit against five Amazon entities with the defendants' consent. The Local Chamber Mannheim allowed the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ordered the refund of 50% of the court fees (€7,500) to the plaintiffs. No cost applications were made or pending.
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P.vsRespondent
Hewlett-Packard Development Company, L.P. filed an application for provisional measures against two defendants for alleged infringement of European Patents EP 2 826 630 B1 and EP 3 530 469 B1, both titled 'Fluid cartridge.' While service to the China-based Defendant 1 was not completed, the Germany-based Defendant 2 was served but failed to lodge a substantiated objection within the time period set by the Court. The Düsseldorf Local Division granted the provisional measures against Defendant 2 by regular order, ordering cessation of infringing activities, provision of information, and imposing penalty payments for non-compliance.
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.