REGISTER now: Visser ai webinar - BEYOND THE HYPE: AI IN PATENT PROSECUTION
​

Access to documents – representation

​
Darren Smyth
​
February 20, 2024
Additional information
Chevron icon
Info
Tags
UPC
Recent cases
Access to documents
Representation
Table of contents
Chevron icon
Table of contents
  • Toc Heading
  • Toc Heading

Ocado v Autostore – appeal on access to documents UPC_CoA_404/2023

Order of 8 February 2024[1]

In the Appeal by Ocado against the Order[2] from the Nordic Baltic regional division granting a request under Rule 262.1(b) for inspection of the statement of claim, the question arose whether the person requesting access to that document required representation by a UPC representative for the proceedings.

Both Ocado and the requester submitted to the Court of Appeal that such a person should not require representation. Both were of the opinion that the requester is not a "party" requiring representation, and moreover the requester argued that requiring representation simply to seek access to a document filed at the court would place an unnecessary burden on that individual and would undermine the ability of the public to ensure that proceedings are open. Autostore did not comment.

Despite these submissions, the Court of Appeal ruled that the concept of "party" requiring representation according to Rule 8.1 RoP was broader than the parties to the action, and that unless specified otherwise (as for example in Rule 5 RoP in relation to opt-outs), any person undertaking any application or action with respect to the UPC required representation. This conclusion was justified on the basis that:

  • The access to the written pleadings and evidence requires a reasoned request. It is appropriate that representation is required for this purpose.
  • The procedure for considering such a request is in principle adversarial, for which representation is called for.

The Court of Appeal therefore held that the requester should have been represented before the Court of First Instance and must also be represented before the Court of Appeal. Accordingly, it disregarded the Statement of response lodged by the requester as it was not lodged by an authorised representative pursuant to Article 48 UPCA.

The requester was given 14 days to instruct a representative and (re)lodge a Statement of response.

The oral hearing to consider the substantive issue of the criteria for the UPC granting access to documents filed at the Court is scheduled for 12 March 2024. Irrespective of what is decided on this issue, the present Order creates a significant barrier to members of the public from even applying for such access, since they will need to instruct a UPC representative to make the request.


[1] https://www.unified-patent-court.org/en/node/568

[2] Reported https://eip.com//knowledge_hub/article/upc_grants_access_to_pleadings_for_the_first_time/

Recent Case Reports

See all Case Reports

Invalidity of juicer patent upheld on appeal
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal upheld the invalidity of Hurom’s juicer patent for lack of inventive step, while clarifying the admissibility requirements for patent amendments and the use of the unamended description when construing amended claims. It also confirmed the UPC’s jurisdiction over infringement in Poland despite Poland not being a UPCA Contracting Member State, but found that Hurom had failed to establish infringement under Polish law.
​
Evidence preservation doesn’t stretch to interrogation
03 November 2026
The Court of Appeal confirmed that evidence-preservation orders may be granted ex parte where there is a demonstrable risk that evidence could be destroyed or become unavailable, and that such orders may extend to relevant commercial and promotional documents. However, Art. 60 UPCA does not permit a bailiff or expert to question the defendant’s personnel on substantive technical matters, which must instead be handled under the Court’s control.
​
UPC Court of Appeal clarifies claim construction, the role of party experts, and provisional measures in direct-competition cases
03 November 2026
The CoA’s decision of 30 April 2025 in Insulet v EOFlow provides important guidance on claim construction, the role of party-appointed experts and the requirements for provisional injunctions.
​