Short Summary
Stadapharm applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence from a declaration of non-infringement proceeding between Accord and Novartis concerning EP 2 501 384. The Milan Local Division initially dismissed the request because the main proceedings were still pending and Stadapharm had not demonstrated sufficient interest. After Accord withdrew the main proceedings and Novartis withdrew its objection, the Court of Appeal reversed the impugned order and granted Stadapharm access to the statement of claim and exhibits TW01 to TW36, subject to redaction of personal data in accordance with EU Regulation 2016/679.
Detailed Summary
This decision of the Court of Appeal, issued on 14 April 2025, concerned an application by STADAPHARM GmbH for public access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) of the Rules of Procedure.
The underlying dispute related to a declaration of non-infringement action (ACT_61148/2024, UPC_CFI_698/2024) before the Milan Central Division concerning European Patent EP 2 501 384, in which Accord Healthcare entities (B.V., S.L.U., and Limited) were claimants and Novartis AG was the defendant. Stadapharm sought access to the Statement of Claim (in German, including translation) and Annexes TW01 to TW36 from those proceedings.
Novartis objected to the request on two grounds: first, that the general interest in public access did not apply because the main proceedings had not yet been concluded; and second, that Stadapharm had not demonstrated a specific interest. Novartis also raised concerns about confidentiality and data protection under EU Regulation 2016/679. Accord did not object to the request.
The Milan Local Division dismissed Stadapharm's application, essentially on the basis that Stadapharm had not demonstrated an interest in accessing the files while the main proceedings were still pending. Stadapharm appealed this order to the Court of Appeal.
Following the filing of the appeal, Accord applied to withdraw the main proceedings. By final order of 1 April 2025 (ORD_15380/2025), the Milan Central Division allowed the withdrawal, thereby bringing the main proceedings to an end. In light of this development, Novartis informed the Court that it no longer objected to Stadapharm's request for access, noting that the request related only to Accord's Statement of Claim and Exhibits. Novartis further stated that it did not consider any parts of those documents needed to be kept confidential, save for the requirement to redact personal data, including names, email addresses, and signatures of the parties' employees and counsels. Accord did not comment on the request and referred the matter to the Court of Appeal's decision.
The Court of Appeal reasoned that, since the main proceedings had been withdrawn and thus concluded, and since neither Accord nor Novartis objected to the request, there was no reason to deny access. The Court further accepted Novartis's position that no confidentiality protection was required beyond the redaction of personal data under EU Regulation 2016/679.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeal reversed the impugned order of the Milan Central Division and granted Stadapharm access to the Statement of Claim DNI (German, including translation) and Annexes TW01 to TW36 (English), redacted in accordance with EU Regulation 2016/679.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Luxembourg (LU). Understanding the court's reasoning in STADAPHARM GmbH vs Accord Healthcare S.L.U., Accord Healthcare Limited, Novartis AG, Accord Healthcare B.V. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
Heraeus Electronics GmbH & Co. KG and Heraeus Precious Metals GmbH & Co. KGvsVibrantz GmbH
Procedural order of the Local Chamber Munich concerning European Patent No. 3 215 288 (relating to a metal sintering preparation). The court corrected an earlier order from December 2, 2024 to include in its operative part the replacement of the counter-defendant (Plaintiff 2) by Plaintiff 1 in the revocation counterclaim proceedings. The court further decided to defer its decision on Heraeus's Rule 362 RoP application—which sought to bar the revocation counterclaim regarding the German part of the patent on res judicata grounds—until after the main hearing scheduled for July 1, 2025.
ALIUD PHARMA GmbHvsAccord Healthcare Group & Novartis AG (Application for Access to Documents under Rule 262 RoP)
ALIUD PHARMA GmbH applied for access to documents filed in a Declaration of Non-Infringement action between the Accord Healthcare group and Novartis AG concerning EP2501384. After the main proceedings were settled and closed, Novartis withdrew its opposition to the access request, subject to redaction of personal data. The Court granted the application and instructed the Registry to produce redacted copies of the requested documents within 15 days.
FUJIFILM CorporationvsKodak GmbH, Kodak Graphic Communications GmbH, and Kodak Holding GmbH
This enforcement proceeding before the Mannheim Local Division concerned FUJIFILM Corporation's second application for the imposition of penalties against three Kodak entities for non-compliance with the operative parts of the main decision of 2 April 2025 regarding EP 3 511 174. The Panel found that the Defendants had not fully complied with their obligations to render information, destroy, recall, and remove infringing products, and imposed cumulative penalties totaling 1,720,000 €, with further non-compliance penalties set at 25,000 € per day.
LiNA Medical AGvsSchultz Medical (UK) Ltd.
LiNA Medical AG, the registered proprietor of European Patent EP 2 593 025 B1 relating to a disposable laparoscopic morcellator, filed an urgent application before the Düsseldorf Local Division for the preservation of evidence and inspection against Schultz Medical (UK) Ltd. The application sought to inspect and analyze the Defendant's 'MORCELLIX' product being exhibited at the MEDICA trade fair in Düsseldorf, which the Applicant suspected of being a slavish copy of its LiNA Xcise™ product. The Court granted the application, ordering an inspection and evidence preservation procedure to be carried out by an independent expert at the Defendant's exhibition booth, subject to confidentiality measures.
Brita SEvsFileder Filter Systems Spolka z o.o.
Anordnung
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.