Contact
blog
IP2Innovate

More work needed to improve public access to UPC patent case documents

By Patrick Oliver, Executive Director of IP2Innovate

 

Last month a law firm submitted a request for documents under rule 262.1 (b) of the UPC Rules of Procedure, which ensures that written pleadings and evidence in patent litigation proceedings are available to the public “upon reasoned request.” The firm is calling on the central division of the Unified Patent Court in Munich to make available all written pleadings and evidence for a pending case in the court.

 

The aim of the law firm, Mathys & Squire, is to establish a clear and consistent path for the public to access these documents in the future. IP2Innovate fully supports this initiative. We have been campaigning for more transparency in patent litigation for many years, and welcomed the improvement to the status quo that the UPC’s rules promised.

 

We support the consistent availability of non-confidential pleadings and evidence to bring more transparency to the UPC. The Court deserves praise for its efforts to date to instil transparency in patent infringement cases, through the availability of case information along with decisions and orders. It goes much further in this direction than national patent courts.

 

However, as things stand there is no consensus among UPC divisions on what it means to be a “reasoned request” under the UPC’s rules that would allow documents to be shared with a third party. This needs to be corrected. Europe’s innovators need a more uniform line in matters of transparency.

 

The lack of full transparency makes it particularly difficult for parties to be aware of the litigation history of a patent, something that is critical for those who are trying to assess its potential relevance. It’s a problem for companies of all sizes but especially small and medium size enterprises with small or non-existent in-house legal teams. 

 

In addition to ensuring that the public’s interest in transparency of patent litigation proceedings satisfies the “reasoned request” set forth in its rules, the UPC can and should go further. We would like to see much shorter delays in sharing information about cases online, and improved search features to make it easier to learn about developments in the court.

 

With the creation of a Europe-wide patent jurisdiction, the potential benefits are great, as are the risks to firms from opportunistic patent attacks. So likewise, the need for increased transparency in all divisions of the UPC is also much greater. We applaud the effort to encourage these improvements.

Share

Other blogs

IP2Innovate

The UPC - an opportunity to get Europe’s patents house in order

With Austria signed up, the Unified Patent Court agreement has now been ratified by the required 13 member countries. The dream of forging one single patent jurisdiction for Europe is on course to become a reality, after decades of uncertainty.
Patrick Oliver

SMEs – the unseen victims of patent trolling

As the European Commission turns its attention to helping improve the regulatory environment for SMEs here is a true story about how patent trolls broke the back of a successful small European business.
IP2Innovate

New academic paper calls for targeted reforms of the IP rights enforcement directive to boost European competitiveness

A new academic paper titled Realizing the potential of proportionality in patent enforcement A case for amending IPRED by professor Rafal Sikorski from Adam Mickiewicz University in Poznan, Poland makes a convincing case for making targeted amendments to the IP rights enforcement directive (IPRED). IP2Innovate spoke to him and asked why IPRED reform is so important for European competitiveness? Here’s what he said: “We are aware that patent enforcement, especially injunctive relief, can be leveraged by patent holders to obtain excessive royalties. Users innovate with their products but find there may be a patent in a small part of the product, one that may even have come from a component supplied by a third party. This is frequently the case with complex tech products. Clearing up these patent issues is both time consuming and costly and in some cases – that is when patent applications have just been filed by patent holders but not yet published – simply impossible”. Professor Sikorski said. “This impacts competitiveness because it can result in products being removed from the market. The injunction creates a barrier to entry and that stifles competition It deprives the market of competition, and it denies consumers the ability to buy these products. “Products have been barred from sale in Europe due to patent disputes. It has happened in the mobile phone sector, laptops, cars. Even a temporary injunction has a very negative effect on a firm’s business. “Mario Draghi’s report on how to restore European competitiveness has been interpreted by some patent owners as a call for strengthening patent enforcement. However, I would argue that Europe must have a more flexible system. Ensuring healthy innovation and competitiveness requires more than just rigid enforcement. It also needs flexibility to address concerns in individual cases.”
Back to overview

Subscribe to our newsletter

Privacy policy

© IP2Innovate 2025 - Website door Two Impress