Short Summary
This procedural order concerned a request by Powell Gilbert LLP, a member of the public, for access to written pleadings and evidence from prior preliminary injunction proceedings (UPC_CFI_131/2024) involving European Patent EP3831283. Abbott opposed the request, arguing that its appeal of the refused preliminary injunction meant the proceedings were still ongoing and that the integrity of the proceedings remained at issue. The Judge-Rapporteur applied the criteria from the Ocado v AutoStore decision and granted public access to the register pursuant to Rule 262.1 RoP.
Detailed Summary
This procedural order was issued by the Court of First Instance, Local Division The Hague, in proceedings identified as UPC_CFI_131/2024 (ACT_14945/2024). The main proceedings were brought by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. (Applicant) against Sibio Technology Limited and Umedwings Netherlands B.V. (Defendants) concerning European Patent EP3831283, owned by Abbott Diabetes Care Inc. The underlying dispute involved an application for a preliminary injunction and other provisional measures. The order refusing the relief sought (ORD_30431/2024) was limited to consideration of added matter objections (intermediate generalization), as noted at paragraph 9 of that order. Powell Gilbert LLP, represented by Mr. A. Rimmer, filed the present request as a member of the public seeking access to the written pleadings and evidence from those proceedings.
Powell Gilbert submitted a request pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP for public access to the register, seeking access to the PI Application, formal responses to court orders from Sibio Technology Limited, Umedwings Netherlands B.V., and Abbott Diabetes Care Inc., Abbott's reply, and rejoinders/objections from both defendants. According to Powell Gilbert, the purpose of the request was to gain a better understanding of the decision rendered in light of the arguments and evidence relied upon by the parties. Powell Gilbert clarified that it was not seeking access to pleadings and evidence relating to any ongoing proceedings on the merits, and argued that the protection of the integrity of the proceedings no longer played a role in the balancing of interests because the proceedings had ended in a final order. Powell Gilbert further asserted that the request was not being filed in an abusive manner or in a way that risked the general interest of justice and public order.
Abbott opposed the application, arguing that because it had appealed the order refusing the preliminary injunction, the proceedings for a preliminary injunction and other provisional measures were still ongoing, making it premature to grant access to any of the requested documents. Abbott contended that the integrity of the proceedings remained at issue. Sibio and Umedwings also submitted that the application should be denied. The parties were invited by the Judge-Rapporteur to comment by preliminary order of 3 July 2024, and all parties filed their comments by letters dated 11 July 2024.
& Analysis: The Judge-Rapporteur, Edger Brinkman, was tasked with deciding the application. The headnote indicates that the court applied the criteria set forth in Ocado v AutoStore (ORD_19369/2024, UPC_CoA_404/2023) regarding public access to the register under Rule 262.1 RoP. The proceedings were conducted in English.
Final Order & Ruling: The headnote of the order indicates that public access to the register was granted pursuant to Rule 262.1 RoP, applying the criteria from the Ocado v AutoStore decision. The full reasoning and detailed terms of the ruling are not fully set out in the provided text, which is truncated before the complete analysis and operative provisions of the order are disclosed.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before The Hague (NL) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Powell Gilbert LLP vs Respondent is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Hologic, Inc.vsSiemens Healthineers AG a.o.
Procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerning EP 2 352 431 B1, in which the court rejected Hologic's request under R. 36 RoP to file additional brief formal comments on the Defendants' submissions dated September 24, 2025. The court held that the request was vague as Hologic failed to specify any new facts, and that Hologic's right to be heard was not unduly restricted since it retained the right to oppose the submissions and would have ample opportunity to respond during the oral hearing.
Dolby International ABvsRespondent
This is a procedural order (Verfahrensanordnung) issued by the Local Chamber Düsseldorf concerning European Patent EP 3 490 258 B1. The plaintiff, Dolby International AB, is represented by Bardehle Pagenberg, with Access Advance LLC intervening as a supporting party. The defendants are fifteen HP entities across multiple European jurisdictions, represented by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer. The order was issued by Presiding Judge Thomas as rapporteur, together with legally qualified judges Dr. Thom and Brinkman, and a technically qualified judge.
Photon Wave Co., Ltd.vsSeoul Viosys Co., Ltd.
This case concerns the admissibility of a revocation action filed by Photon Wave Co., Ltd. against Seoul Viosys Co., Ltd.'s European patent EP 3404726 before the Paris Local Division. The revocation action was originally brought before the Paris Central Division but was transferred to the Local Division following a preliminary objection order. Seoul Viosys argued that the Local Division lacks jurisdiction under Article 33(4) UPCA and that the action is manifestly inadmissible because Photon Wave, as an intervener in a pending infringement action, is restricted to filing a counterclaim for revocation rather than an independent revocation action.
Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsRespondent
This order concerns the withdrawal of the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation in a patent dispute before the Local Chamber Mannheim. The parties reached a settlement and jointly filed applications on December 20, 2024, to withdraw the proceedings following the final decision of November 22, 2024. The court permitted the withdrawal, declared the proceedings terminated, and ruled that each party bears its own costs with no reimbursement of court fees.
Maxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.vsRespondent
This procedural order from the Düsseldorf Local Division concerns the protection of confidential information under Rule 262A RoP in infringement and counterclaim for revocation proceedings relating to European Patent No. 3 065 184 B1. The court amended its prior order of 23 December 2024 to add three named individuals to the group of persons authorized to access confidential information, while rejecting the request to grant a fourth individual (Ms. [...]) separate access.
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.