Short Summary
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to all written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings (APL_322/2025) concerning the revocation action over EP 3 504 991, in which NJOY Netherlands B.V. is the appellant and Juul Labs International, Inc. is the respondent. The Court of Appeal held that written pleadings or evidence added to the casefile before a party commented on the request can be covered by a decision granting access, but blanket requests for future documents are not admissible. Immediate access was granted based on Nicoventures' reasoned request and its status as a party to concrete legal proceedings concerning the validity of the patent at issue, subject to conditions protecting the integrity of proceedings.
Detailed Summary
This decision concerns a request for access to written pleadings and evidence filed by Nicoventures Trading Limited, a company based in London, UK, represented by Samuel Keyes of D Young & Co LLP. The underlying proceedings are an appeal (App_13352/2025) arising from a revocation action (ACT_571801/2023, UPC_CFI_315/2023) before the Central Division Paris, decided on 5 November 2024. In those proceedings, NJOY Netherlands B.V. (Amsterdam, The Netherlands), represented by Dr Henrik Holzapfel of McDermott Will & Emery, is the appellant and claimant, while Juul Labs International, Inc. (San Francisco, USA), represented by European Patent Attorney Bernhard Thum of Thum&Partner, is the respondent and defendant. The patent at issue is EP 3 504 991. The request was filed in the context of APL_322/2025 before the Court of Appeal (UPC_CoA_7/2025), with the matter decided by Panel 2, with Ingeborg Simonsson as the legally qualified judge and judge-rapporteur. The language of the case is English.
Nicoventures requested immediate access to all written pleadings and evidence in APL_322/2025 under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure. The central legal questions addressed by the Court of Appeal concerned the scope and admissibility of such access requests. Specifically, the Court examined whether documents added to the casefile after the request was made but before comments were submitted could be encompassed by a decision granting access, and whether blanket requests for documents that might be added in the future are admissible. The Court also considered whether a request that does not explicitly mention specific documents but could be understood to encompass unspecified documents in related proceedings is admissible.
& Analysis
The Court of Appeal established several principles regarding access to written pleadings and evidence. First, it held that written pleadings or evidence not yet in the casefile at the time of the request, but added before a party commented on the request, can be covered by a decision granting access, provided the request made clear that such documents were encompassed. This approach reduces the need for further separate requests while ensuring parties are consulted. Second, blanket requests for access to documents that may be added after comments or after the decision on access are not admissible; a new request would be required. Third, a request that does not explicitly mention specific documents, even if it could potentially be understood to encompass unspecified documents in related proceedings, is not admissible. The Court further reasoned that immediate access can be granted based on a reasoned request by a member of the public who is party to concrete legal proceedings concerning the validity of the patent at issue, with a stated direct interest in that validity. The Court also noted that, for the purpose of appropriate protection of the integrity of proceedings, it may impose certain conditions on granting access, and this can be done on the Court's own motion as a matter of general interest, citing the earlier decision in Ocado (CoA, 10 April 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023, APL_584498/2023).
Final Order & Ruling
The Court of Appeal granted immediate access to the written pleadings and evidence to Nicoventures Trading Limited, subject to a specific condition: the member of the public is not allowed to file the written pleadings in question, or parts thereof, with other courts or judicial instances such as the EPO Boards of Appeal, or distribute them elsewhere, until the present appeal has been adjudicated or otherwise closed. The Court clarified that this condition does not prevent Nicoventures from informing itself of the arguments brought forward in the case, including prior art, and from using the same arguments or prior art before the Boards of Appeal or elsewhere to support its own cases, or from informing the Boards of Appeal that such arguments or prior art have been brought forward in the UPC proceedings.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in Nicoventures Trading Limited 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.