Court hearing on public access to evidence in Unified Patent Court to be held in February 2024

The outcome of the test case filed by Mathys & Squire to secure public access to evidence in the Unified Patent Court (UPC) is expected early in 2024. Commentary provided by Mathys & Squire has been featured in JUVE Patent, Law 360, the Solicitors Journal and World Intellectual Property Review.

An extended version of the press release is available below.

The Unified Patent Court (UPC) has now set a schedule for hearing an appeal which is likely to be determinative on the rights of the public to access evidence and pleadings filed with the Court.

Two weeks ago, Mathys & Squire brought a test case before the Munich Section of the Central Division of the UPC arguing that, by default, evidence and pleadings filed with the Court should normally be made available to third parties on request and that access should only be restricted when it is absolutely necessary to protect confidential or personal information.[1]

Mathys & Squire also applied to intervene in an appeal where a party is seeking to overturn the decision of a judge in the UPC’s Nordic-Baltic division to permit a third party to obtain copies of evidence and pleadings.[2]

The appeal pending before the UPC Court of Appeal has now been assigned to the second panel of the Court of Appeal with judge Ingeborg Simonsson being appointed as the judge-rapporteur for the appeal. Ms. Simonsson has been a full time judge in the Swedish courts since 2008 and in 2020 was appointed Judge in the Svea Court of Appeal and the Patent and Market Court of Appeal.[3]

Judge Simonsson has now set a 15-day deadline for the parties to comment on Mathys & Squire’s application to intervene. She will then make a decision as to whether or not to accept Mathys & Squire’s application. The parties will then be given a further 15 days to submit written arguments to the court on the substance of the appeal. An oral hearing will then be held on 15 February 2024.

Nicholas Fox, Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “We welcome the appointment of Judge Simonsson as judge-rapporteur in the appeal. The Swedish Courts have an exceptionally long history of transparency and openness, and the principle of public access is considered an essential principle of Swedish law. Judge Simonsson will be an excellent judge to consider this appeal.”

The case pending before the Munich Section of the Central Division has been stayed pending the outcome of the Appeal.[4] 

Alexander Robinson, Partner at Mathys & Squire, says: “The decision to stay the proceedings pending the Court of Appeal decision supports our arguments that we have a legal interest in the appeal and should be allowed to intervene.”

In the cases being brought, Mathys & Squire are being represented by Nicholas Fox and Alexander Robinson, partners from our London office, and Andreas Wietzke, a partner from our Munich office.

[1]  Pending as case no. APP_588681/2023. A copy of the arguments that Mathys & Squire submitted to the court is available here.

[2] Case No. APL_584498/2023,

[3] A biography of Judge Simonsson can be found here.

[4] Preliminary Order UPC_CFI_75/2023