Public Access and Redaction: The Düsseldorf Local Division on Rule 262 RoP
The Düsseldorf Local Division clarifies the mechanics of public access to the register after proceedings have concluded. The order establishes a staggered disclosure process to manage the administrative burden of redaction.
The doctrinal framework governing public access to the register under Rule 262 RoP has progressively solidified through appellate jurisprudence. The Düsseldorf Local Division has now applied these settled principles to a concluded dispute in App_57167/2024, clarifying how the general interest of the public interacts with the protection of pre-litigation licensing negotiations and the administrative burden of redaction.
Why did the judge-rapporteur grant access without requiring a specific competitive interest?
The underlying infringement action concerning EP 3 605 534 was concluded at first instance in September 2024 following a withdrawal of the action. The applicant, a patent attorney seeking to expand his knowledge of FRAND issues in audio coding, requested access to the case file. The defendants opposed the request. They argued that the applicant lacked a legitimate, direct interest in the FRAND licensing of audio codecs.
The Düsseldorf Local Division rejected this defence. Relying on established Court of Appeal case law, including the foundational Ocado v. Autostore and Abbott v. Powell Gilbert orders, the judge-rapporteur noted that once a court has issued a decision or order concluding the proceedings at first instance, the public generally has an interest in accessing the written pleadings and evidence. This general interest allows the public to understand the decision against the backdrop of the parties' arguments and to monitor the judiciary. Because the main proceedings in UPC_CFI_226/2024 were already closed, the judge-rapporteur held that this general interest outweighed the confidentiality interests under Rule 262.6 RoP. The applicant was not required to demonstrate a specific competitive or commercial interest in the patent, as such a specific interest is only strictly necessary while proceedings remain pending.
Which information was excluded under Rule 262.2 RoP?
While the general request was granted, the claimant successfully applied to withhold specific sections of the Statement of claim. The claimant argued that paragraphs 25 to 35 and exhibits BP-V1 to BP-V5 contained sensitive details regarding out-of-court contacts and licensing negotiations. The claimant emphasised that maintaining confidentiality over such exchanges aligns with standard business practices and forms the implicit basis of any bilateral discussion regarding potential patent licensing.
The Court accepted this reasoning. The operative order states that information on out-of-court correspondence between the defendants and the claimant is classified as requiring confidentiality. These specific paragraphs and exhibits were entirely excluded from the file inspection. Furthermore, the Court ordered the redaction of all personal data within the meaning of the General Data Protection Regulation from the provided documents.
Does a successful applicant face restrictions on using the disclosed documents?
Yes. The claimant requested that the applicant be bound by a strict confidentiality obligation. The Court agreed, noting that the applicant had primarily justified his request based on a personal interest in professional education.
Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant is obliged to treat the information obtained through file inspection confidentially and not to disclose it to other persons. The only exception applies to information the applicant already obtained lawfully from outside sources. To enforce this restriction, the Court attached a potential penalty payment to any breach of the obligation.
What must applicants for file inspection anticipate after App_57167/2024?
Practitioners seeking access to voluminous case files must prepare for a staggered disclosure process. To manage the significant personnel and time expenditure required to redact personal data, the Düsseldorf Local Division introduced a sequential mechanism for providing access to documents.
Applicants should expect the following procedure:
- The Registry will first provide only a redacted copy of the main written pleading, omitting all annexes.
- The applicant must review this primary document to identify which specific exhibits remain relevant to their inquiry.
- The applicant must then send a targeted email to the Registry, explicitly designating the required annexes for subsequent redaction and release.
This approach prevents the Registry from expending resources redacting exhibits that the applicant may already possess or no longer need. Practitioners should therefore avoid blanket requests for all case materials and instead prepare to justify their selection of exhibits based on their reading of the initial pleadings.
Sources
Further Reading
Articles related to the topics covered above.
Confidentiality Against Oneself: Waiving the Natural Person Requirement at the UPC
The Düsseldorf Local Division confirms that a party may obtain a confidentiality order against itself to comply with US export controls, effectively waiving the statutory guarantee of Rule 262A.6 RoP.
Conditional Counterclaims for Revocation: The Court of Appeal on Rule 263.3 RoP
The Court of Appeal has clarified the procedural mechanics for making a counterclaim for revocation conditional upon a finding of infringement. The order establishes a framework for conditional appeals to preserve validity attacks.
Retroactive Revocation and Penalty Refunds: The Court of Appeal on Enforcement Costs
The Court of Appeal clarifies that revoking an injunction of the Court of First Instance retroactively revokes associated penalty orders. Claimants enforcing pending appeal bear a significant cost risk if the merits decision is overturned.