2025-04-18 - LD Paris - HP v. Lama - UPC_CFI_358/2023

1) The Court of appeal has made it clear on several occasions that the wording « reasoned request » means a request that not only states which written pleadings and evidence the applicant wishes to obtain, but also specifies the purpose of the request and explain why access to the specified documents is necessary for that purpose, thus providing all the information that is necessary for the Judge-rapporteur to make the balance of interests. 2) A broad application that does not specify the written pleadings and evidence to which access is requested cannot have the effect of granting the third party access to all pleadings and evidence of the case. 3) In the event of parallel proceedings before a national court regarding the validity of the Italian part of the patent concerned, the debate concerning the validity of the patent may be useful and justify the legitimate interest of the third party. 4) However, since the evidence relevant to the attack on the validity of the patents in question is public data, it is not necessary to order the communication of each evidence in the context of the present application. 5) As regards the infringement discussed before the Italian Court, there is no demonstration that the products in question have the same origin, so the evidence relating to the infringement discussion will not be disclosed to the third party as part of this application for access to the register because it has not been shown that they are necessary for the dispute before the Italian Court.

The Paris Local Division issued this order (only available in French) granting partial file access to a third party. The Court went into detail regarding the weighing of interest and the requirements for a successful application for file access, in particular the specific mentioning of documents. The order was published (at least) twice.