Rule 262 – Public access to the register

1. Without prejudice to Articles 58 and 60(1) of the Agreement and subject to Rules 190.1, 194.5, 196.1, 197.4, 199.1, 207.7, 209.4, 315.2 and 365.2, and following, where applicable, redaction of personal data within the meaning of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 and confidential information according to paragraph 2

   (a) decisions and orders made by the Court shall be published,

   (b) written pleadings and evidence, lodged at the Court and recorded by the Registry shall be available to the public upon reasoned request to the Registry; the decision is taken by the judge-rapporteur after consulting the parties.

2. A party may request that certain information of written pleadings or evidence be kept confidential and provide specific reasons for such confidentiality. To this end content of the register is made publicly available according to paragraph 1(b) only 14 days after it has been available to all recipients. The Registrar shall ensure that beyond this time period information subject of a request for confidentiality shall not be made available pending an Application pursuant to paragraph 3 or an appeal pursuant to Rule 220.2. When a party lodges a request that parts of written pleadings or evidence shall be kept confidential, he shall also provide copies of the said documents with the relevant parts redacted when making the request.

3. A member of the public may lodge an Application with the Court for an order that any information excluded from public access pursuant to paragraph 2 may be made available to the applicant.

4. The Application shall contain:

   (a) details of the information alleged to be confidential, so far as possible;

   (b) the grounds upon which the applicant believes the reasons for confidentiality should not be accepted; and

   (c) the purpose for which the information is needed.

5. The Court shall invite written comments from the parties prior to making any order.

6. The Court shall allow the Application unless legitimate reasons given by the party concerned for the confidentiality of the information outweigh the interest of the applicant to access such information.

7. The Registrar shall as soon as practicable take all such steps with regard to access to the register as may be necessary to give effect to an order of the Court under this Rule.

Relation with Agreement: Articles 10, 45, 58 and 60(1)

Relation with Statute: Article 24(2)

Case law

Court of Appeal

IPPT20250120, UPC CoA, Amazon v Nokia- II
Penalty payment sanction (Article 82(4)UPCA) on a confidentiality order (Article 58 UPCA) can only be imposed on a party, but not against their representatives, which does not exclude the parties' liability for infringements by their representatives. Insofar as the requests relate to court staff, there is also no legal basis, since neither Rule 262 nor Rule 262A RoP is applicable with regard to court staff. It should also be noted that court staff are subject to a duty of confidentiality that extends beyond their period of service, in accordance with Article 5.3 of the Staff Regulations of Officials and other servants of the Unified Patent Court. 

IPPT20250109, UPC CoA, Abbott v Powell
Appeal dismissed, rightly granted access (Article 45 UPCA, R. 262 RoP). A ‘reasoned request` in R.262.1(b)RoP means a request that not only states which written pleadings and evidence (…) the applicant wishes to obtain, but also specifies the purpose of the request and explains why the access to the specified documents is necessary for that purpose, thus providing all the information that is necessary for the judge-rapporteur to make the required balance of interests. Once the CFI has concluded the proceedings, there is generally no reason to protect the integrity of the CFI proceedings, regardless of whether the CFI decision or order deals with all the arguments and evidence in the case or not; irrespective of whether the rendered order concerns provisional measures of the information or evidence ia also subject to other proceedings.

IPPT20241223, UPC CoA, Microsoft v Suinno
Application for confidentiality of “Confidential Global Licence & Art 79 UPCA Settlement offer to Microsoft” granted under R. 262 RoP (to the public) instead of R. 262A RoP (intra parties). This document, in its original version, is obviously known by Suinno and its representative and, as a result, does not require a restriction of access to specific persons pursuant to R 262A RoP. Instead, considering the confidential nature of some information contained therein, its original confidential version shall be treated as confidential and shall not be available to the public.

IPPT20240410, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore
Public access to written pleadings and evidence (Article 45 UPCA, Rule 262 RoP). Appeal dismissed. Balance of interests in the present proceedings in favour of granting access to statement of claim based on an interest of a general nature after the proceedings had come to an end by a settlement. The general principle is that the register and the proceedings are open to the public, unless the balance of interests involved is such that they are to be kept confidential. Interests to be balanced. The interests of the parties or other affected persons include the protection of confidential information and personal data (’the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons’). The general interest of justice includes the protection of the integrity of proceedings. Public order is at stake e.g. when a request is abusive or security interests are at stake. A “reasoned request” R.262.1(b) RoP means a request providing all the information that is necessary to make the required balance of interest. General interest of a member of the public that written pleadings and evidence are made available allows for a better understanding and scrutiny. Interest of protection of the integrity of proceedings ensures that the parties are able to bring forward their arguments and evidence and that this is decided upon by the Court in an impartial and independent manner, without influence and interference from external parties in the public domain. The general interest of public access and the interest of protection of integrity of the proceedings are usually properly balanced and duly weighed against each other, if access is given after the proceedings of an instance have come to an end by a decision. The balance is usually also in favour of allowing access if proceedings have come to an end before a decision and the integrity of proceedings no longer plays a role. A direct interest, such as regarding validity or infringement, may be immediately present and, in weighing against the general interest of integrity of proceedings, the balance will generally be in favour of granting access. The Court may, however, for the purpose of appropriate protection of the integrity of proceedings, impose certain conditions on granting access, such as the obligation for that member of the public to keep the written pleadings and evidence he was given access to confidential as long as the proceedings have not come to an end. 

Court of First Instance

IPPT20250212, UPC CFI, LD Düsseldorf, Ona v Apple
Procedural order specifying confidential information (R. 262 RoP)

IPPT20250129, UPC CFI, LD Paris, C-Kore Systems v Novawell
Action concluded by way of settlement and confirmation of settlement agreement by decision of the court (R. 365 RoP, R. 11.2 RoP). Declares that the unredacted version will remain confidential (R. 262 RoP)

IPPT20250127, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Avago v Tesla
No party objections. Access granted (R. 262 RoP) to the pleadings and annexes filed in the workflow of the invalidity counterclaim CC_581177/2023 UPC_CFI_52/2023. This does not concern access to the file of the infringement proceedings or other workflows.

IPPT20250124, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Microsoft v Suinno – IPR-EPO
Access to register of pending proceedings denied (Article 45 UPCA, R. 262 RoP). The interest in protecting the integrity of the ongoing proceedings outweighs the interest in accessing information asserted by the applicant, prevails. The mere fact of being interested in the outcome of a specific legal issue, concerning the interpretation of statutory provision of the ‘UPCA’, which is debated before the Court may not be sufficient to grant access to the case file where the interests mentioned in Article 45 ‘UPCA’ were deemed to be more relevant.

IPPT20250114, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Sanofi v Accord
Witness's personal details and copy of his passport do not qualify as confidential information under Rule 262A RoP. The witness's personal data are protected against disclosure to third parties by the mechanism provided for in Rule 262 RoP. 

IPPT20250108, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v SWAT
No cost decision concerning application for access to written pleadings and evidence (R. 150 RoP, R. 262 RoP). A decision on costs presupposes that there has been a decision on the merits of the dispute or for the determination of damages. For these purposes, a “decision on the merits” must be understood as a decision that concludes litigation proceedings, that is proceedings where the ascertainment of a right is sought by one party against another and is capable of producing the effects of res judicata on conflicting subjective positions and from which a situation of the defeat of one party with respect to another may arise, justifying the award of costs.

IPPT20250103, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Nanostring v Harvard
Applicant granted access (R. 262 RoP) to the written pleadings and evidence in Revocation action that has ended with a final decision of 17 October 2024 

IPPT20241227, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Netgear v Huawei
Maintaining confidentiality (R. 262 RoP,  R. 262A RoP). Order to include the Huawei-Qualcomm-license by resubmitting it in these proceedings with requests accordance with Rules 262.2 and 262A of the Rules of Procedure. This is the only way to ensure that the confidentiality requirement can be documented in the CMS. The continued application of the confidentiality measures already ordered is ordered.

IPPT20241104, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Astellas v Healios
Access allowed to unredacted versions of documents (R. 262.3 RoP). The Court […] accepts that the Information is not confidential, at least not as regards the Applicant. It follows that the Claimant has not given legitimate reasons to withhold access to the Information by keeping the Information confidential vis-à-vis the Applicant.

IPPT20241022, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen
Access granted to (only) the written pleadings and evidence lodged and recorder in the register. Case has ended by way of a decision by the Court (R. 262(1) RoP).

IPPT20241014, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards
Unrestricted access granted to all pleadings and evidence in ended infringement proceedings and counterclaims for revocation (Article 45 UPCA, R. 262 RoP). Generic interest: the mere fact of operating in the same field as the patent in dispute is not sufficient to establish a specific interest in the proceedings’ documents on their part. Applicants’ requests may not be considered insufficiently reasoned, because the fact that the applicants are carrying out preparatory activities to possibly enter the market concerned by the patent at issue is adequate to establish an interest in accessing the requested documents.

IPPT20240923, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Meril v Edwards Lifesciences
Access based on general interest only – no specific interest as competitors or concern with the validity of the patent – outweighed by the protection of the ongoing proceedings (Rule 262 RoP)

IPPT20240918, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Edwards v Meril
Also the written procedure of the Court shall, in principle, be open to the public. However, access to the pleadings and evidence rejected at this point in time (Article 45 UPCA, R. 262 RoP). The protection of the integrity of the ongoing proceedings hereby outweighs the interest in information asserted by the applicant, so that the parties can present their arguments and evidence and so that the court can conduct the proceedings impartially and independently, without influence or interference from external parties in the public sphere. 

IPPT20240917, UPC CFI, LD Hamburg, Ballinno v UEFA
Public access, subject to confidentiality order, after rejection of application for provisional measures with decision of 3 June 2024 (Article 45 UPCA, R. 262 RoP). Access granted based on claimed general interest in the work and processing of a case by the Court, but subject to confidentiality order regarding technical data and internal company information that is not being publicly available.

IPPT20240822, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Astellas v Healios
Applicant granted access to the written pleadings and evidence (Rule 262 RoP). Once proceedings have come to an end the integrity of proceedings is no longer at stake and the balance of interests will normally be in favour of granting access to written pleadings and evidence pursuant to Rule 262.1(b) RoP, subject to the redaction of personal data and the redaction of confidential information pursuant to Rule 262.2 RoP).

IPPT20240812, UPC CFI, LD Vienna, Swarco v Strabag
Petitioner’s request for access to the Statement of claim, the pleadings including the evidence rejected at the current stage of the proceedings (Article 45 UPCA, Rule 262 RoP). The general interest of justice includes the protection of the integrity of the proceedings. During pending proceeding the access requested by the applicant must have a significant impact on its circumstances and the interest must be concrete. In order to assess whether the applicant's product fulfils one or more features of the patent in suit, it does not need the statement of claim including the evidence of these ongoing proceedings. 

IPPT20240730, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Cead v Bego
No confidentiality club for expected litigation costs, including working hours of lawyers and patent attorneys and resulting fee claims, but confidential treatment vis-à-vis the public granted (Rule 262A RoP, Rule 262(2) RoP). A restriction of access to information for parties to proceedings pursuant to Rule 262A always includes an exclusion of the public from access to the information pursuant to Rule 262 RoP as a ‘minus’. While the parties to the proceedings who would be affected by a possible confidentiality order pursuant to Rule 262A RoP are particularly affected by the fundamental right to be heard and their right to a fair trial, only the general public interest in information must be taken into account when deciding on the request pursuant to Rule 262.2 RoP. The requirements for granting a restriction on publication are therefore lower.

IPPT20240729, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Mathys & Squire v Bitzer and Carrier 
Access to all written pleadings and evidence granted (Rule 262 RoP, Article 45 UPCA). The interest of integrity of proceedings usually only plays a role during the course of the proceedings.  Having this in mind, it must be considered that the current proceedings have come to an end that the interests opposing the publication of the proceedings, as outlined in Article 45 ‘UPCA’, do not seem substantial enough to override the requester's interest in gaining access to the related documents and evidence. 

IPPT20240729, UPC CFI, LD The Hague, Powell Gilbert v Abbott and Sibio
Public access to the register granted, applying criteria set forth in IPPT20240410, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore (Rule 262 RoP). No specific interest required; interest of better understanding and scrutiny of decisions outweighs any interests of the parties involved once the proceedings have ended; in case of an appeal the purpose of protection of integrity withholding access to the documents in first instance no longer serves that purpose; No annex was filed while applying for confidentiality under R. 262A and Abbott also did not provide any specific reasons for confidentiality of (any of) those annexes. Leave to appeal granted.

IPPT20240514, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Bhagat
Public interim conference and protection of confidential information (Article 45 UPCA, Article 58 UPCA). Ordered that the interim conference be open to the public, unless in the course of the interim conference, for the purposes of protecting confidential information, the Court decides to limit attendance to the parties' advocates only, in respect of specific matters dealt with, with particular regard to the issues examined in the order rendered on 6.5.2024. 

IPPT20240430, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Plaintiff is upon its own request ordered to submit redacted licence agreements, subject to further to be determined confidentiality regimes under Rule 262 and 262A RoP. Order is based on the extensive case management powers vested in the Court (Article 43 UPCA) and the judge-rapporteur (Rules 101, 111 and 331 et al. RoP), not Rule 172 RoP or Rule 190 RoP.

PPT20240424, UPC CFI, CD Paris, NJOY v Juul
Access granted to party in EPO opposition proceedings regarding the patent to all written pleadings and evidence submitted by both parties as currently contained in the CMS (Article 45 |UPCA, R. 262 RoP). No Access to court-generated Documents and to to future Documents

IPPT20240306, UPC CFI, CD Paris, Bitzer Electronics v Carrier
Request for access to documents rejected (Rule 262 RoP). The Rule has to be interpreted, according to the literal wording of the provision, meaning that it refers to only written pleadings and evidence lodged by the parties and that it does not include other documents which are uploaded in the CMS (see UPC_CFI_75/2023 CD Munich, order of 21 September 2023). Does not apply to communications between the registry and the parties and to evidence of activities carried out by the Registry (examination of formal requirements). The same can be said with regard to an order, issued by the Court regarding a request of stay of the proceedings, because it cannot be deemed as written pleadings or evidence lodged by one of the parties. It may be added that the interest of members of the public to know the status of a patent and, in particular, whether it is subject to an opt-out or not can be satisfied by accessing to the Register pursuant to Rule 37 of the Rules governing the Registry of the Unified Patent Court.

IPPT20240214, UPC CFI, LD Mannheim, Panasonic v Xiaomi
Submission of SEP Patent Licenses. There is typically a recognisable need for confidentiality of business-related information contained in licence agreements and only permit submission upon a court order, which may require involving the respective license agreement partner in the proceedings. Incremental 13-step procedure enables the parties to obtain comprehensive protection of secrets and allows the parties to submit the documents in the protected proceedings even without a court order to produce them (Rule 262A RoP, Rule 190 RoP). The confidentiality regime (Rule 262 RoP, Rule 262A RoP) is organised in the following 13 steps [....] (see also the order of the Düsseldorf Local Chamber of 14 February 2024 [[in 10x Genomics v Curio Bioscience, IPPT20240214]..[...]. 13) In the event of a request for access to the file by a third party not involved in the proceedings pursuant to Rule 262(3) RoP of the Rules of Procedure, the document is protected from access by the parallel request pursuant to Rule 262(2) RoP and is not part of the access to the file by third parties. 

IPPT20240208, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore
Public access to register requires representation (Rule 8 RoP, Rule 262 RoP, Article 47 UPCA, Article 48 UPCA). ‘Parties’ requiring representation pursuant to Rule 8(1) RoP encompasses also (i) a third party affected by an order or decision such as a third party under Rule 190 RoP and (ii) a member of the public under Rule 262.1(b) RoP. Opt-out applicants are expressly exempted in Rule 5(4) RoP..Members of the public requesting access to the register pursuant to Rule 262 RoP are in an adversarial situation where representation is called for.

IPPT20240130, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Abbott v Dexcom
One division is not bound by a decision in another division despite belonging to the same unified court.  Discrepancy in the fines (€ 50.000 v € 250.000) set by the Local Division Paris and the Local Division Munich for breach of confidentiality orders (Rule 262 RoP, Rule 262A RoP) in parallel proceedings between the same parties concerning the same protected confidential information regarding two different patents. No justified need to harmonise the amount of the fine because one division is not bound by a decision in another division despite belonging to the same unified court. The Judge-Rapporteur was justified in considering that part of the confidential information had already been disclosed without a confidentiality restriction and that a lower amount of the fine would sufficiently protect the legitimate interests of the parties in the event of a breach. Therefore, a maximum fine amount of EUR 50,000 in case of breach is appropriate and proportionate in the contested confidentiality order and there is no need to set a higher maximum amount for the fine. No need for amendment of the order to avoid the potential risk of a double fine: it will be at the Court’s discretion, at the time of any breach, to decide on the appropriate amount of a fine to be paid, taking into account all elements in concreto, including any previous fine decided by the UPC Munich Local Division for the same breach. There is no grounds to bind the Paris Local Division, in case of breach and as requested by Dexcom, in cases where the Munich Local Division has already imposed a fine. 

IPPT20231228, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Astellas v Healios
The Court will wait for the outcome of the Appeal Proceedings on the application of Rule 262 RoP before proceeding with the present Application for access to written pleadings and evidence. The Applicant is to submit the final Court of Appeal decision in the Appeal Proceedings (´the Court of Appeal decision´). No legal basis for request to have the judge-rapporteur inform the Court of Appeal of the order staying the present proceedings to ensure that the Court of Appeal is aware of that order. Moreover, the judge-rapporteur has no access to the Court of Appeal (CMS) file. 

IPPT20231227, UPC CFI, LD Munich, KrausMaffei v Troester
Protection of confidential information (Rule 262A RoP). The protection of confidential information contained in pleadings and annexes can only be requested within a workflow pursuant to Rule 262 and/or 262A of the Rules of Procedure at the same time as the initial filing or within 14 days. These requests must be repeated when further pleadings and annexes are filed.

IPPT20231219, UPC CFI, LD Paris, Abbott v Dexcom
Protection of confidential information (Rule 262 RoP, Rule 262A RoP). Redacted commercial information in the Statement of Defence, shall be kept confidential and excluded from public access (Rule 262 RoP). the Statement of Defence contains information regarding notably sales figures and revenues, which are indeed sensitive information, the Court considers that there are sufficient reasons not to disclose the Confidential information in the public register pursuant to R. 262.2 RoP. 

IPPT20231211, UPC CoA, Ocado v Autostore 

Parties to address whether a third party requesting access to documents under Rule 262 RoP needs to be represented as a party before the UPC under Rule 8 RoP.

IPPT20231201, UPC CFI, LD Milan, PMA v AWM
Access given to a representative before the UPC to application for preserving evidence and inspection filed on 23.8.2023 after redaction of personal data (Rule 262 RoP).

IPPT20231117, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Astellas v Healios

Public access to confidential commercial information restricted (Rule 262 RoP). The Court grants request to keep the information in the Confidential Annex confidential for third parties, provided a redacted version thereof is submitted (Rule 262(2) RoP).

IPPT20231106, UPC CoA, Ocado
Appeal from the order to grant a third party access to documents (Rule 262 RoP) shall have suspensive effect, to ensure that there is time to adjudicate Ocado’s appeal on the merits from the Order to grant a third party access to documents, which will be enforceable on 7 November 2023 and would make the appeal devoid of purpose. (Article 74 UPCA, Rule 223 RoP, Rule 262 RoP) Application ex officio handled as having extreme urgency by the standing judge (Rule 223(4) RoP).

IPPT20231017, UPC CFI, RD Nordic-Baltic, Ocado v Autostore

Availability to the public of pleadings or evidence. Article 45 UPCA means that the written procedure of the Court shall, in principle, be open to the public unless the Court decides to make it confidential, to the extent necessary, in the interest of one of the parties or other affected persons, or in the general interest of justice or public order. If a person has made an application under Rule 262.1(b) for access to pleadings or evidence and provided a credible explanation for why he/she wants access, the application shall be approved unless it is necessary to keep the information confidential.

IPPT20231003, UPC CFI, LD Munich, Huawei v Netgear

1) Workflows.  According to Rule 4.2 RoP, the parties are required to use official forms provided online, including the various workflows, such as, for instance, for the main proceedings, for Rule 262 RoP or Rule 262A RoP.  Automatic provisional protection against public access. In the workflow in accordance with Rule 262.2 RoP, a party can apply for protection against third party access. Provisional protection is automatically provided upon receipt of the request. If a third party requests access, the request will be reviewed by a court. This also applies in the event that this information is contained in an order or decision of the court. The requesting party and the third party are parties to the proceedings. Other parties to the proceedings are not involved in the proceedings.

IPPT20230927, UPC CFI, LD Milan, Oerlikon v Himson

Rule 262(1) RoP requires that the application be made by a third party - private or public - with respect to the parties to the proceedings. A lawyer who declares himself to be the defendant's advocate, asserting that he only has the power of attorney to access the documents of the proceedings but not to enter an appearance, and asks for access to the file before the service of the writ of summons in order to obtain prior knowledge of the documents, is not a third party.

IPPT20230921, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Astellas v Healios
Public access to letter for service rejected (Rule 262.1(b) RoP). A concrete and verifiable, legitimate reason is required for making available written pleadings and evidence upon a request by a member of the public. To be informed of the proceedings before the Unified Patent Court for the purposes of education and training is not a legitimate reason as required by Rule 262.1(b) RoP. It is also insufficiently concrete and verifiable. No legal basis to give access to letter for service.

IPPT20230920, UPC CFI, CD Munich, Sanofi-Aventis v Amgen
Availability of written pleadings and evidence to the public requires a legitimate reason. Rule 262(1)(b) RoP requires a concrete, verifiable and legally relevant reason, i.e. more than just any (fictitious) reason. In other words: a legitimate reason is required for making available written pleadings and evidence to a member of the public. Otherwise, this provision and the distinction made would seem to be moot and without substance. The mere “wish” from a natural person to form “an opinion” on the validity of a patent out of a “personal and a professional interest” cannot be accepted as a sufficiently concrete, legitimate reason to make available all pleadings and evidence in this case.