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
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.