Sanofi SA (as successor of Sanofi Mature IP), Sanofi Winthrop Industrie, Sanofi-Aventis GmbH, Sanofi Belgium, Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, Sanofi S.r.l., Sanofi B.V., Sanofi - Produtos Farmaceuticos Lda, Sanofi AB, Sanofi A/S v. Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare GmbH (AT), Accord Healthcare BV, Accord Healthcare GmbH (DE), Accord Healthcare Italia Srl, Accord Healthcare B.V., Accord Healthcare, Unipessoal Lda., Accord Healthcare AB, STADAPHARM GmbH, STADA Arzneimittel AG, STADA Nordic ApS, Reddy Pharma SAS, betapharm Arzneimittel GmbH, Dr Reddy's Srl, Zentiva France, Zentiva Pharma GmbH, Zentiva, k.s.

Nicoventures Trading LimitedvsNJOY Netherlands B.V and Juul Labs International Inc.

This order addressed a request for public access to documents under Rule 262.1(b) RoP, stemming from parallel EPO opposition proceedings concerning EP 3430921. The Applicant argued that parties in EPO oppositions needed full visibility into UPC revocation actions to protect their interests and uphold natural justice. While the court granted access to existing materials in the CMS, it firmly rejected requests for future documents or non-decision/order court-generated materials, citing a lack of legal basis and practical concerns.

Mathys & Squire LLPvsBITZER Electronics A/S; Carrier Corporation

In a decision concerning public access to court files, the UPC granted an application by Mathys & Squire LLP. The applicant sought access to all written pleadings and evidence in a patent validity case (EP 3 414 708). The Court determined that the general interest of the public in transparency superseded any potential confidentiality concerns under Article 45 UPCA, particularly as the proceedings were concluding. This ruling underscores the UPC's commitment to open justice while balancing party interests.

Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsOROPE Germany GmbH; Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

In this procedural matter, Panasonic Holdings Corporation sought permission to call its expert witness as a formal witness during the oral hearing concerning a FRAND counterclaim. The Mannheim Local Division denied the request, emphasizing that once the interim proceedings are formally concluded, further substantive requests are highly restricted under UPC rules. The court also clarified that an expert's role is to present specialized opinions, which differs fundamentally from providing testimony on disputed facts.

Panasonic Holdings CorporationvsGuangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp. Ltd.

This UPC appellate decision addressed an application for the production of evidence (R.190 VerfO) during a complex SEP/FRAND dispute involving OPPO, OROPE, and Panasonic. The court rejected the request by the defendants to obtain extensive documentation from Panasonic regarding its licensing agreements with third parties. The ruling underscores the judicial balancing act required when assessing requests for confidential information in FRAND cases, prioritizing proportionality over broad disclosure.

Abbott Diabetes Care Inc.vsDexcom Inc., Dexcom France SAS, Dexcom International Limited

This procedural order in the Abbott v. Dexcom case addresses complexities arising from service issues across multiple defendants. The Judge-Rapporteur, utilizing UPC Rules of Procedure (RoP), granted an extension and aligned the deadline for filing the Statement of Defence for all three Dexcom entities. This decision highlights the court's pragmatic approach to ensuring fair procedural timelines in multi-defendant infringement actions.