Unified Patent Court grants access to evidence but concerns remain over how transparent the new European Court system is going to be

Commentary by Partner Nicholas Fox has been featured in Law360, Global Legal Post, World Intellectual Property Review, Managing Intellectual Property, Commercial Dispute Resolution, Solicitors Journal, discussing the Unified Patent Court’s (UPC) decision to grant Mathys & Squire’s access to evidence in a Unified Patent Court case between Astellas and Healios.

Read the extended press release below.

Background

Mathys & Squire, the intellectual property law firm, had brought a test case to try and improve the transparency of the operations of the UPC. Previously commented on the following articles:

1. Mathys & Squire files UPC test case in support of open justice
2. Court hearing on public access to evidence in Unified Patent Court to be held in February 2024 
3. UPC Court of Appeal interprets law narrowly in transparency test case 
4. A further blow to transparency at the UPC? 
5. UPC releases pleadings to the public, but questions remain
6. Update on Mathys & Squire test case in support of open justice
7. Are written proceedings before the UPC truly public? A tale of three access requests  

In recent decisions the UPC had been restricting the access of third parties to pleadings and evidence in UPC cases that should have been accessible on request.

The principles of openness and transparency in Court proceedings and the rights of third parties to access public documents are well established principles in International and European law.

The UPC is a new court system (just over a year old) which will have the power to enforce patents across much of the European Union.

Comments from Nicholas Fox, Partner at Intellectual Property Law firm Mathys & Squire: “We are delighted that the Unified Patent Court has finally granted our request to access the pleadings in this case.”

“However, the way in which our request has been processed still raises significant concerns about the UPC commitment to transparency and open justice.”

“It has taken more than 8 months for the court to process our request. The exceptionally slow processing of the request has delayed our access until after the underlying case was settled.”

“The Judge-Rapporteur has previously stated an intent that the access request would be processed “expeditiously” as soon as an appeal relating to another document access request had been concluded. Those appeal proceedings concluded on 10 April and yet the Court has taken more than 4 months to process our application and issue a decision granting our access request.”

“So far, the UPC has yet to grant access to written pleadings and evidence in a case prior to an underlying matter being concluded.”