Our take on some recent decisions of note from the UPC Court of Appeal

On 10 April 2024 the Court issued its order on third party access to pleadings and evidence in Ocado’s appeal and granted access where the interest was general but the proceedings had come to an end.

Key takeaways:

  • Panel Composition: Art. 9(1) UPCA should be interpreted such that the Court of Appeal may decide without technically qualified judges if the appeal relates to non-technical subject matter. Whereas, once technically qualified judges have been assigned, they should deal with the whole dispute, including the non-technical aspects. 
  • Public access to written pleadings and evidence: the general principle (Art. 10 & 45 UPCA) is that the register is public and the proceedings are open to the public, unless the balance of interests weighs against that (these interests include confidentiality, personal data protection, the protection of the integrity of proceedings and public order). 
  • Reasoned requests: requests for access to court documents must specify the purpose and necessity for access, allowing the judge-rapporteur to balance interests (Rule 262.1(b) RoP). Where there is a direct legitimate interest, rather than a more general one, the balance will generally be in favour of access (with any necessary safeguards). 
  • Integrity of proceedings: The protection of the integrity of proceedings is crucial, but once proceedings end or are settled, public access is generally favoured (subject to the protection of confidential information/personal data protection). 

On 17 April 2024 the Court issued its order to change the language of proceedings from German to English in Curio Bioscience v 10x Genomics

  • In principle, a change of language can be achieved based on Art.49(3) UPCA/R. 321 RoP - upon agreement of the parties; Art.49(4) UPCA/R. 322 RoP - upon proposal of the judge-rapporteur and with agreement of the parties; or Art.49(5) UPCA/R. 323 RoP - upon application by one of the parties.
  • Curio, which is US-based, requested to change the language based on Art. 49(5) UPCA. In this context, the Court explained that when deciding on such a request, on grounds of fairness, all…

Full article available on PatentHub

Latest insights

More Insights
Orange notepad with pencil

Intellectual Property in E-Cigarettes and Vapes in the UAE

Jun 13 2024

Read More
Curiosity line pink background

Setting the scene: Hong Kong Privacy Commissioner publishes first comprehensive AI-specific guidance

Jun 13 2024

Read More
Baggage carousel

Travel businesses and trade marks

Jun 13 2024

Read More