Short Summary
Nicoventures Trading Limited requested immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in an appeal before the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court concerning EP 3 498 115, citing its direct interest as a party to parallel EPO opposition appeal proceedings against the same patent. Juul Labs and NJOY objected, arguing the request was overly broad and risked undermining confidentiality. The Court of Appeal granted access to the specifically identified documents already in the casefile, subject to redaction of personal data and a condition prohibiting Nicoventures from filing or distributing the pleadings with other courts until the appeal is closed, while dismissing the remainder of the request.
Detailed Summary
This decision, issued on 25 April 2025 by the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court (Panel 2, Judge-Rapporteur Ingeborg Simonsson), concerns a request by Nicoventures Trading Limited under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure for immediate access to written pleadings and evidence in appeal proceedings (APL_289/2025, UPC_CoA_5/2025) between Juul Labs International, Inc. (appellant/defendant before the Court of First Instance) and NJOY Netherlands B.V. (respondent/claimant before the Court of First Instance). The underlying case was a revocation action (ACT_571669/2023, UPC_CFI_309/2023) decided by the Central Division Paris on 5 November 2024, concerning European Patent EP 3 498 115.
Nicoventures requested access to specific listed documents, including the Statement of appeal, a Formal response to the request for amendments, a Corrected Statement of appeal, and any additional documentation constituting written pleadings or evidence submitted by either party. It also requested access to all written pleadings and evidence contained in the CMS at the time the order was granted. Nicoventures argued it had a direct interest in the validity of the patent at issue because it had opposed the patent before the EPO, which resulted in revocation by the opposition division on 4 March 2024, with appeal proceedings currently pending before the EPO Boards of Appeal. It sought access to submit these materials in the parallel EPO proceedings.
Juul Labs objected, arguing that Rule 262.1(b) only covers documents already lodged and recorded, and that there was a substantial likelihood Nicoventures would copy-paste passages from the UPC pleadings into EPO briefs, which automatically become public in the EPO online register, thereby contravening the parties' confidentiality interests and undermining the UPCA's confidentiality principle. NJOY objected to the application as excessively broad, particularly insofar as it concerned future materials not yet on file.
The Court of Appeal applied the principles from its earlier decision in Ocado (CoA, 10 April 2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023), balancing the member of the public's interest in access against the general interests under Article 45 UPCA, including protection of confidential information, personal data, the integrity of proceedings, and public order. The Court held that documents not yet in the casefile at the time of the request but added before the parties commented could be covered by a decision granting access, provided the request made clear they were encompassed. However, blanket requests for documents that might be added after comments or after the decision are not admissible, requiring a new request. The Court also held that requests potentially encompassing unspecified documents in related proceedings are not admissible.
The Court found that Nicoventures' submission about its interest fulfilled the criteria for immediate access, as it is a party to concrete legal proceedings concerning the validity of the same patent. While Juul Labs raised a valid concern about the risk of reproduction in EPO proceedings, the Court held this risk could be mitigated by imposing conditions on its own motion to protect the integrity of proceedings.
The Court granted access to the specifically listed documents (the Statement of appeal, Formal response to the request for amendments, Corrected Statement of appeal of 4 January 2025, Statement of Grounds for Appeal, and Exhibit TP-15) after redaction of personal data. Access was granted subject to the condition that Nicoventures is not allowed to file the written pleadings, 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 and prior art brought forward in the UPC proceedings, or 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 raised in the UPC proceedings. The remainder of Nicoventures' request was dismissed, and the decision was declared to close the application.
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.