Short Summary
Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, applied under Rule 262.1(b) RoP for access to written pleadings and evidence in terminated proceedings between NEC Corporation and various TCL entities concerning European patent EP 2 645 714. NEC opposed the request, arguing it was not a reasoned request and that the stated educational purpose was pretexted. The Local Division Munich partially granted the request, allowing access to specific written pleadings in redacted versions, with personal data redacted and appendices to be provided upon further request.
Detailed Summary
This order concerns an application by Taylor Wessing PartG mbB, a law firm, for access to written pleadings and evidence under Rule 262.1(b) RoP in proceedings that had already been terminated. The underlying proceedings involved NEC Corporation as Claimant and several TCL entities (TCL Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, TCL Industrial Holdings Co., Ltd., TCT Mobile Germany GmbH, TCT Mobile Europe SAS, TCL Communication Technology Holdings Ltd., TCL Operations Polska Sp., Z.o.o, and TCL Overseas Marketing Ltd.) as Defendants, concerning alleged infringement of European patent EP 2 645 714. Access Advance LLC intervened in the proceedings. The Defendants had filed a counterclaim for revocation, and the proceedings were terminated when the parties applied for leave to withdraw their claims and counterclaim, which was granted by decisions of 15 January 2025 and 24 January 2025.
The Applicant (Taylor Wessing) argued that its request was reasoned within the meaning of Rule 262.1(b) RoP, citing educational interests and a desire to better understand procedural developments and legal reasoning in UPC proceedings, particularly regarding claim interpretation and prior art assessment. The Applicant agreed to access only redacted versions of confidential documents.
The Claimant (NEC) opposed the request, arguing that: (1) the Applicant had not lodged a reasoned request, having only expressed a general professional or educational interest without concrete and verifiable reasons; (2) there were no 'ongoing proceedings' since the infringement action, counterclaim for revocation, and counterclaim for a FRAND-license offer had been withdrawn; (3) no decision on the merits had been rendered, so there was no basis for the stated purpose of understanding the Court's practice; (4) the purpose appeared pretexted, particularly given the temporal context of the request and the fact that NEC had recently filed further complaints based on the patent in suit and EP 3 057 321 against several defendants; (5) the request was inadmissibly broad; and (6) the weighing of interests favored rejection. Defendants 1 to 6 also requested rejection of the application.
The Court, presided by Judge Ulrike Voß, found that the Applicant's request was reasoned within the meaning of Rule 262.1(b) RoP. The Court reasoned that the proceedings had been terminated but the documents still existed, and that the public interest in access to written pleadings and evidence is a general principle. The Court noted that the Applicant's interest in understanding the Court's practice regarding claim interpretation and prior art assessment was legitimate, even though no decision on the merits had been rendered. The Court also addressed the Claimant's concerns about the temporal context but found that the mere existence of parallel proceedings did not render the request abusive.
Regarding confidentiality, the Court followed the approach taken by other Local Divisions (LD Mannheim in Ampersand/Panasonic and LD Düsseldorf in Epson/Dolby), instructing the parties to provide the written pleadings and evidence in redacted versions with confidential information removed. The Court ordered that personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 must be redacted.
The final order: (I) The Applicant was granted access to specific written pleadings and evidence in their redacted versions, including the complaint, statement of claim, and statements of defence/counterclaim; (II) The further request was rejected; (III) Personal data must be redacted; (IV) Due to the time and effort involved in redacting personal data, the Applicant would initially only be provided with the written pleadings without appendices, with the option to request specific exhibits/appendices afterward.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before Munich (DE) Local Division. Understanding the court's reasoning in Taylor Wessing PartG mbB (Application for Access to Register) – NEC Corporation vs TCL Entities (EP 2 645 714) is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
TCL Europe SASvsCorning Incorporated
TCL Europe SAS brought a revocation action before the Central Division (Section Munich) of the Unified Patent Court seeking to invalidate Corning Incorporated's European Patent EP 3 296 274 B1, titled 'Fining of Boroalumino Silicate Glasses,' on grounds of lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, insufficient disclosure, and added matter. The Court dismissed the revocation action in its entirety, finding that the patent's subject matter did not extend beyond the application as filed, was sufficiently disclosed, was novel, and involved an inventive step. TCL, as the unsuccessful party, was ordered to bear Corning's legal costs.
XSYS Germany GmbH, XSYS Prepress N.V., and XSYS Italia S.r.l.vsEsko-Graphics Imaging GmbH
The defendants in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3742231 filed a procedural application requesting that the language of the proceedings be changed from German to English, the language in which the patent was granted. The claimant, Esko-Graphics Imaging GmbH, consented to the requested change and agreed that no translations of previously submitted pleadings were required. The President of the Court of First Instance granted the application, ordering the language of proceedings changed to English without conditional translation or interpretation arrangements.
igus GmbHvsWhale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd.
Default judgment (Versäumnisentscheidung) of the Local Chamber Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 3 912 243 B1, which protects a compact line guide for clean room applications. The plaintiff, igus GmbH, alleged that the Chinese defendant, Whale Technology (Shanghai) Co., Ltd., infringed the patent by offering a 'CPY' line guide at the Hannover Messe and through associated catalog distribution. Because the defendant failed to appear or respond, the court granted the plaintiff's claims in full, including a finding of infringement, an injunction, recall and information orders, and provisional cost reimbursement.
UERAN Technology LLCvsXiaomi Corporation et al.
Procedural order issued by the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court in a patent infringement action concerning EP 2 385 739. Defendant Xiaomi Technology Germany GmbH requested a uniform deadline regime for all defendants and a two-week extension of the replication and duplication deadlines to account for Christmas and Easter holidays. The court granted the application, noting that service proofs for several defendants were still outstanding and reserving the right to subsequently shorten deadlines if representation of the remaining defendants is not promptly assumed.
Kunststoff KG Nehl & Co.vsHäfele SE & Co. KG
This is a revocation action concerning European patent EP 3 767 151 before the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court, Central Division (Section Munich). The parties jointly requested a stay of proceedings to concentrate on finalising ongoing settlement negotiations. The Judge-rapporteur agreed to stay the proceedings under Rule 295(d) RoP, cancelling the oral hearing originally scheduled for 4 June 2025.
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.